Telephone Hacking
	 — 
	Question

Lord Fowler: To ask Her Majesty's Government what further action they intend to take to prevent telephone hacking by newspapers.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, phone hacking is unacceptable and against the law. The police must be allowed to probe into all the evidence. The CPS will then assess whether any prosecutions should be brought in accordance with the tests laid down by the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Should Her Majesty's Government launch another phone-hacking inquiry now, it would risk obstructing these investigations. We shall, in the circumstances, monitor closely all the results and consider whether any further action will be necessary.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. There was a time when there was an attempt to write off phone hacking as the work of one rogue reporter. Does my noble friend recognise that in the last two weeks alone, News Corporation has paid out damages of £100,000 to the actress Sienna Miller and admitted misuse of private information, breach of confidence and harassment? News International has now set up what it calls a £15 million compensation fund for the victims of phone hacking, and evidence has emerged that the News of the World is not the only newspaper involved. Does she agree that all this represents a massive conspiracy against the public which the police and the Press Complaints Commission have been powerless to prevent, and will she give an assurance that once the criminal proceedings are complete-I emphasise, once they are complete-the Government will set up an independent inquiry to find out where the responsibility lies?

Baroness Rawlings: My noble friend Lord Fowler is extremely knowledgeable and experienced on this subject. I have read the details that he mentioned, but I need to make it clear from the start that my answers will cover only press regulations and not the criminal aspects. I know that your Lordships are well aware that the criminal aspects of hacking are covered by the Home Office. We do, however, fully understand my noble friend's request for a further inquiry to be set up after the present cases are resolved. We are witnessing a revolution in the information and communications world, as in technology in general, of such galloping speed that I can only agree with my noble friend that constant monitoring is essential in case further action is needed.

Lord Soley: With regard to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I agree and understand the Minister's case that she cannot do anything while court proceedings are possible. However, News International, and Rupert Murdoch particularly, have a history of avoiding publicity when there have been bad cases. There was another case of a former editor of the Sun-a very serious sexual assault case in the office. The editor was finally dismissed and large sums of money were paid, but nothing was public because it was hushed up by a conditional agreement in court by News International. There is a major problem about the way in which that group operates. I accept entirely that it has to be after the court case, but there really has to be some sort of inquiry.

Baroness Rawlings: The noble Lord, Lord Soley, makes an important point about BSkyB and News Corporation. The Secretary of State has to make a quasi-judicial decision about the impact of the proposed merger on media plurality. Going back to his pinpointing regarding one newspaper, it was interesting that in February 2010 the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee published a report on press reporting that included the examination of the phone-hacking episode. It was critical of the News of the World and the police and stated that it did not find it credible that such an activity was limited to just one rogue reporter. However, according to recent press interviews, the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said:
	"It really isn't acceptable to keep pointing the finger at one newspaper when, clearly, the use of unlawful means of investigating was, or is, widespread".

Lord Elton: My Lords, this question is adjacent to a concern about super-injunctions. Is there not now a need to establish some means of deciding what the proper balance is between public interest, freedom of the press and personal privacy?

Baroness Rawlings: My noble friend Lord Elton hits right at the centre of this whole argument. The Attorney-General has announced a Joint Committee to look at all aspects of privacy and the use of anonymity injunctions and super-injunctions. We are currently looking at the terms of reference for the committee. To clarify, general injunctions stop the press reporting. With super-injunctions, the press are not allowed to say that they have been gagged, which is very rare.

Lord Ryder of Wensum: My Lords, should a committee of inquiry be established, will my noble friend please take on board the need to ensure that it investigates the very close links between senior police officers and senior executives of newspapers? Indeed, it is alleged that during the initial inquiries into the main case that we are discussing today, police officers were entertained by the executives of that newspaper.

Baroness Rawlings: My noble friend Lord Ryder brings up a very delicate point about the inquiries. A number of investigations by the police are already under way. There are also several ongoing court cases, two parliamentary committees, and reviews by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Press Complaints Commission. At this stage it is hard to see whether another inquiry would be of any use, but the situation is constantly being monitored.

Lord Sugar: Does the noble Baroness agree that it is ludicrous to suggest that an editor of a national newspaper was not aware of where the information came from? In the past, as I believe one of my noble friends has mentioned, a journalist was given a custodial sentence for phone tapping. Is not the editor responsible for what goes in the newspaper, and therefore should he not also be given a custodial sentence, as well as, indeed, the proprietor and the board of directors?

Baroness Rawlings: I mentioned at the beginning that I was answering for the DCMS, which strays into the Home Office. When it comes to editors, I am afraid that I am unaware of what is happening.

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: Can my noble friend the Minister indicate why it took five years, from 2006 to 2011, with Rebekah Brooks of Sky having only just been notified, to inform the victims of hacking that they were on Glenn Mulcaire's list of names and numbers? Can she assure the House that all known victims have now been notified and that in future such victims will be notified as soon as possible?

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the merger is being investigated on the basis of the effect that it could have on media plurality. As I said, phone-hacking allegations are very serious, but they are a matter for the criminal courts and may take a very long time. It would be impractical and quite wrong to delay a decision for such a long time.

Armenia: Genocide
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Flather: To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their timetable for recognising the Armenian genocide.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, there is no doubt that the treatment of the Armenians was horrific and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands by force of arms, starvation or disease. They should not be forgotten, but we believe that it is for the Turkish and Armenian people to work together to address their common history. We encourage any process which helps them do so in an open, honest and constructive manner, but it would not be helpful for us to pre-empt their conclusions.

Baroness Flather: My Lords, France has already recognised the genocide. One and a half million people were massacred in 1915. I have just come back from Armenia where I visited the genocide museum. I am sure that many of your Lordships have visited the Holocaust museum. This is no less upsetting, shocking and dreadful than the Holocaust museum. There is so much evidence and it was known at the time that this was happening. Every newspaper from every country had headlines about this massacre. It is out of the question for Turkey and Armenia to decide. Nobody thinks of Armenia as a country worth thinking about. It is for us to recognise-

Noble Lords: Question!

Baroness Boothroyd: Is it not for us to recognise?

Baroness Flather: Thank you very much everybody. You are all helping me, which is very kind. Is it not for us to recognise this crime against humanity? It is time that we did that. Turkey has ambitions-I have the Turkish Review.

Noble Lords: Too long!

Baroness Flather: Too long. Thank you.

Lord Howell of Guildford: We all appreciate the noble Baroness's feelings about what was clearly an horrific event in the distant past and one that arouses exactly the feelings of shock and horror that the noble Baroness has demonstrated. The Turkish and Armenian people are trying their best through a protocol procedure to normalise their relations and establish the right nomenclature and attitudes between each other so that these two countries can live in peace with a common border and continue to work for their joint prosperity. Now that protocols have been initialled and now that other Governments-the United States, France and other key countries-all take the same view as we do, this is the right way forward. Behind this is the other worry about Nagorno-Karabakh, and all that, which is being handled by the Minsk process of Russia, the United States and France. These two things together provide hope for the future and it would not be useful or constructive for us to take an issue and raise the heat of the matter by intervening in the way suggested by the noble Baroness.

Lord Avebury: Does my noble friend agree that after a century of taboo and silence Turkish journalists and historians are at last beginning to discuss the evidence of murder, enslavement, deportation and forcible transfer, rape, persecution and other inhumane acts of a similar character directed against the Armenian population of Turkey in 1915-16? Would it not help Turkey's application to join the European Union if Turkish politicians acknowledged the crimes of their ancestors?

Lord Howell of Guildford: I repeat that the best way forward is for Turkey and Armenia, which have initialled detailed protocols, to work to sort this out. I believe that Turkey, which is a very dynamic and an increasingly key country in both the Middle East and in European affairs, is fully aware of this and is determined to push forward with an understanding. There are many people on the Armenian side who, while fully recognising the horrors to which my noble friend has referred, also believe that this is the right way forward.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, given that, as the Minister said, there is no doubt that genocide took place and that those who were killed should not be forgotten, can he say what is the official guidance on representation at the Armenian Genocide Memorial Day? I understand that there has been some reluctance of Ministers and others to attend the commemoration.

Lord Howell of Guildford: I will write to the right reverend Prelate on the precise wording of guidance on that. Behind it, there is always the concern that it is a matter to be settled between Turkey and Armenia. They are trying their best to do so and we must be very responsible and careful about any moves or acts of recognition or acceptance that would upset a delicate but very important process. I know that it is a natural impulse to feel, as the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, indicated, that we want to express our outrage at what occurred, but the best way forward is between these two countries.

Lord Tomlinson: Does the Minister recognise that Armenia and Turkey, as well as Azerbaijan, all work together very constructively in the Council of Europe and, at a political level, in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe? That body, which serves such useful purposes on so many disputes that still exist in the wider Europe, is currently being starved of money by having much less generous settlements of its already meagre budget by comparison with the settlements that are being made for the European Union budget. Will the Minister look at that and make sure that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Council of Europe, with their roles in relation to the European Court of Human Rights, are getting adequate resources to do their valuable work?

Lord Howell of Guildford: Of course I will look at that. We recognise that at this time everyone is having to trim back on the availability of resources, but I am absolutely at one with the noble Lord on this matter. The Council of Europe is a very valuable forum in which the very long-standing and difficult disputes of the area can begin to be effectively resolved.

Baroness Cox: Is the Minister aware that there is a serious risk in Turkey of prosecution for journalists and writers who use the term "Armenian genocide"-some have been prosecuted-and that much educational material for schools has been produced by the Turkish Government denying the Armenian genocide? Does the Minister agree that such censorship in public discussion and education is unacceptable for a nation that hopes to join the European Union?

Lord Howell of Guildford: I do not want to comment on the detailed internal affairs of the Turkish Republic, but of course the values of freedom of expression are very important to us. We will continue to uphold our values and assert them wherever we can-and we do. The precise internal handling of the issue that Turkey and Armenia are now proceeding to handle is one that we have to leave to them.

East Jerusalem
	 — 
	Question

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they will take following the publication in March by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs of its report on key concerns affecting civilians in east Jerusalem.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we remain concerned about a number of Israel's continuing policies in east Jerusalem, which the UK considers occupied under international law. These include ongoing settlements expansion, the demolition of houses and the eviction of Palestinian residents, the route of the barrier wall and restrictions on residency rights. In his public statement of 5 April, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary condemned plans to build 500 new Israeli settlements in occupied east Jerusalem as illegal and an obstacle to peace.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He listed many of the points of deep concern. Does he agree that these harm the welfare and even the citizenship of Palestinians living in east Jerusalem? What is more, they prejudice, do they not, final status negotiations in a very damaging way.

Lord Howell of Guildford: Very many people would agree with the noble Lord's sentiments. Of course, this area has been occupied since 1967 when-to get history right-Israel was attacked, broke through the Mandelbaum Gate and occupied east Jerusalem and many other areas as well. Ever since then, the handling of the occupation by the Israeli authorities has given rise to criticism. It is the clear view of Her Majesty's Government that the more heavy-handed and inappropriate the operations in the administration of east Jerusalem, with the kind of things that I described, the more we postpone the goal that we all want to achieve of proper peace negotiations to bring the two-state solution that will bring peace and harmony to the area.

Lord Dubs: I welcome what the Minister said about the Government's policy. Do not all the criticisms that he made, which I believe are valid, add up to the fact that it will be extremely difficult for east Jerusalem to become the capital of a Palestinian state?

Lord Howell of Guildford: Everyone recognises the whole Jerusalem issue, and the east Jerusalem issue is an enormously complex part of any future negotiations. We are talking about the goal of both Palestine and Israel recognising east Jerusalem as a joint capital. It is the capital of both countries and of many religions throughout the world. A degree of understanding is needed and is still missing between the Israeli authorities-although not among many highly enlightened and intelligent members of the Israeli community-the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Government, who are led in a very positive way at the moment, so that the very difficult concept of Jerusalem as the capital of both countries can be worked out and they can live together.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, may I, through my noble friend, congratulate our ambassador in Israel, Mr Matthew Gould, on the excellent practical work he is doing on the ground in east Jerusalem? Will my noble friend tell us whether the Foreign Office and DfID are jointly minded to implement some of the recommendations of the OCHA report, including prioritising zoning for Palestinians and building schools so that half the Palestinian children living in east Jerusalem who currently do not get free schooling are able at least to get an education so that they can move away from radicalisation? Will they please impress on the Israelis not to try to disfranchise the Palestinian population in this manner, or peace will never come?

Lord Howell of Guildford: I certainly agree with the last comment. As for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs' report, which is a very long document-I think it is 118 pages-there are very positive ideas in it, which we are studying very closely with our colleagues in DfID. Where we can make a contribution and see these ideas carried forward, we will certainly do so.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: What is the Government's support for President Obama's initiative? How do they see the issue of Jerusalem fitting into any follow-up process? How is that process being organised now, given the very negative reaction of the Israeli Prime Minister?

Lord Howell of Guildford: The answer to the question is in the noble Lord's last comments. The reaction has been very negative indeed. The process we want to see remains the key to the future. There are elements in the jigsaw. One is whether, in joining with Fatah, Hamas can come forward with and deliver a responsible negotiating Government who renounce violence, accept the quartet principles and can go forward in good talks with Israel. Another is that the Israeli authorities recognise that there is no alternative to going forward in a positive away. Another is that they recognise that it is now when they should move, whereas the attitude in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv appears to be to wait and do nothing. We do not agree with that. We think this is a golden opportunity. All these matters must be fed into the process that President Obama tried to set in motion the other day but, so far, with not much success.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, the Minister will know the story of the three MPs, legitimately elected to represent areas of east Jerusalem, who were imprisoned by the Israelis because they had been elected. On release from prison nearly a year ago, they were told they were to be deported from east Jerusalem and would have to leave their homes and families behind. They have now been in an upper room in the Red Cross building in east Jerusalem for nearly one year. What are our Government going to do about it?

Lord Howell of Guildford: We are doing as much as we can, which is constantly to raise this matter with the Israelis. We do not at all approve of what has happened. We believe this is a wrong pattern. My noble friend has traced this evolution and development very closely indeed, probably as closely as anyone else in this House. Our pressure will continue. We are not the sovereign power, but we can explain our views and put them forward very strongly on a matter that is totally unsatisfactory.

NATO
	 — 
	Question

Lord Lee of Trafford: To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the recent speech by the United States Secretary of Defence Robert Gates on the future of NATO.

Lord Howell of Guildford: Defence Secretary Gates' speech was a warning that Europe cannot take for granted the security blanket provided by NATO and historically resourced primarily by the United States. It also says something about the changing position of the United States itself. To deliver the capabilities that ensure our security, many European countries, especially NATO allies that fail to meet the 2 per cent of the GDP target, which was reconfirmed as recently as March 2011, need to increase levels of defence spending and work together more efficiently and effectively, as demonstrated by the UK-France defence treaty. We also need to remember that effective security involves hard and soft power elements-in fact, smart power.

Lord Lee of Trafford: I am very grateful to my noble friend for that very comprehensive reply. Perhaps I may remind the House precisely what Secretary Gates said. He said:
	"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the US Congress-and in the American body politic writ large-to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defence".
	While we are very grateful for all that the United States does, does not its lack of complete commitment on the Libyan operation send a clear message to us? Is not American increasingly looking to the East?

Lord Howell of Guildford: Behind my noble friend's question is of course the truth that the world is changing, the balance of power is changing, and the unipolar moment, as it is called, for the United States has passed. Nevertheless, it remains an immensely powerful and close ally that is playing quite a detailed and substantial part in the overall operation against Colonel Gaddafi's Libya and against the hideous divisions of that country. The US case, and our case, that other countries in NATO could do more is widely accepted by everyone. Clearly, there is a great need for a fairer distribution of the burden of meeting the Libyan situation and many other situations that are bound to arise.
	I do not think that we should be too gloomy about that adjustment. America remains our very close friend and one of the greatest countries in the world. We will work very closely with it on security, and the softer aspects of security, in trying to achieve global peace and stability.

Lord Martin of Springburn: Is the Minister as concerned as I am that some Ministers in the Scottish Parliament are publicly saying that they want to withdraw from NATO? This would be harmful to the Scottish people and to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Lord Howell of Guildford: Perhaps I should be but I am not as concerned as he is because I did not know that they were doing this. If Ministers in the Scottish Parliament think that they can somehow opt out of the collective security on which we all depend, and if any country thinks that it can have a free ride, they will need to think again because in this new world most of the operations in which we will be involved will now be completely interdependent, operating closely with a whole range of allies in different combinations. I am sure that the skills, the fighting spirit and the long traditions of Scotland will be just as much needed in global security as everything else. Perhaps these Ministers should think again.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, while I am sure that the noble Lord is right to point to the contribution of other European countries and the need for them to contribute more, does he not think that we have to look at our own capability? Last year, the Government undertook a very hurried defence review. In the light of the current commitments of our Armed Forces, does not the noble Lord think that another review is required?

Lord Howell of Guildford: No, I do not. After 2015 our budget will start expanding again. We are much the largest contributor in the European end of NATO. We are fulfilling our commitments. The operations in which we are involved are completely sustainable, contrary to some remarks we have all read about in the press. We believe that we have the dispositions, the patterns and the plans to meet as far as we can individually the crises of the future. The answer to the noble Lord's question is no, but these are certainly fluid matters and anything could be coming around the corner. Great events could hit us and we always have to be ready to review the situation.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, this statement has come from the United States on many occasions before, but it has been expressed with exceptional candour and frankness in what I believe could have been the valedictory message of Secretary Robert Gates, who may shortly be retiring. It has done the credit of telling people quite frankly what the feeling is in the United States. Contrary to the suggestion that might have come from the opposition Front Bench, the United Kingdom is certainly not the laggard in this matter. A number of other countries in NATO have for years failed completely to make a reasonable contribution, which very much threatens the willingness of the United States to continue to make the effort it wants. In a very dangerous and uncertain world, would my noble friend recognise that while NATO can take on a certain amount of responsibility, when considering issues such as piracy in Somalia, we should welcome the opportunity for Russian, Chinese, Indian and other forces to get involved in what are in fact issues of universal concern?

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the first of my noble friend's comments is based on his considerable experience and expertise in this area, and I totally agree with him. I agree even more strongly with his second point. These are becoming global issues on which all the responsible powers, or powers that wish to be responsible-that certainly includes great nations such as China, India, Russia and countries like Brazil-all have a responsibility, and they can no longer either enjoy a free ride while the western world tries to carry the burdens or stand aside, as we sometimes hear from Beijing, and say, "We are not going to interfere in anything. It is nothing to do with us". They are going to find that this is something to do with them, and already we are seeing welcome signs that some Chinese diplomatic voices are raising that point and involving themselves in trying to resolve various ugly crises, such as that in southern Sudan.

Arrangement of Business
	 — 
	Announcement of Recess Dates

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, we have reached 30 minutes, but I know that that Question was one in which many noble Lords wished to take part.
	I should like to make a Statement on two matters. First, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the usual channels have agreed that the speakers' list for the debate on House of Lords reform next Tuesday and Wednesday will close at 6 pm on Monday evening, which is a little earlier than usual. In addition, the House will meet early on Wednesday, at 11 o'clock, in order to help accommodate the number of speakers currently on the list. However, Oral Questions on Wednesday will be taken at the usual time of 3 o'clock. We will start the day by resuming the debate, then break for Oral Questions, and return to the debate afterwards.
	Perhaps it would be helpful if I remind noble Lords that paragraph 4.32 of the Companion provides that Members speaking in a debate should be present for the opening speeches and the winding speeches at the very end, as well as for the greater part of the debate. That does mean, of course, on both days.
	I turn now to the Recess. I hear calls of "Hear, hear", but we shall see how long that lasts. When I announced the long-term Recess dates on 21 October last year, I made it clear at that stage that the dates were subject to the progress of business. We have not made as much progress as is necessary, and I know that noble Lords around the House are well aware of that. I am now in a position to inform the House that we will return one week earlier in October. The House will return from the Summer Recess on Monday 3 October, not on Monday 10 October. That is a limited adjustment and I look to all sides of the House to achieve reasonable progress both before and after the summer to enable us to hold to the other dates already announced. Subject to the progress of business, we will still rise for the Summer Recess at the end of business on Wednesday, 20 July.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the two Statements she has made, in particular the first one, which has been agreed through the usual channels and will, I think, be convenient to your Lordships' House. I am grateful to her for confirming the arrangements.
	I also thank the noble Baroness for telling the House about the Government's plan to bring noble Lords back early for an additional week during the Conservative Party conference, which no doubt will be a relief to many, to deal with what I consider to be a chaotic logjam of government Bills. This is almost entirely without precedent. When we were in Government, it is true that we brought in September sittings, but that was done by agreement across the parties. Indeed, when we introduced the change back in 2002, we tabled a Motion on the matter for the House to discuss and determine. We have not been consulted about this and there is no Motion for the House to debate. When I advised Labour Members yesterday evening of the likely announcement, there was genuine anger. It disrupts long-planned appointments and arrangements, and treats the House with contempt. It says that the House is the plaything of the Government-a Government who have lost control of their legislative programme.
	The truth is-in saying this I apportion no blame to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay-that the Government are trying to force through a programme that is overlong, overprogrammed and overblown. In short, it is too long and they know it, and the House and the process of scrutiny are the sufferers. This is a crisis of timetabling, caused not by your Lordships' rightful desire to scrutinise Bills but by political mismanagement, emanating from No. 10. This House has already had the farce of badly drafted Bills, such as the Public Bodies Bill, and still to come are the Armed Forces Bill, the Scotland Bill and the Office for Budget Responsibility Bill. We have been waiting for a health Bill that was promised to the House in May but will not be here until October or November at the earliest. We also have such complex Bills as the Welfare Reform Bill and the Protection of Freedoms Bill to come.
	What assurances can the House have that, even with this extra week, we will complete our work without further incursions into Recess dates, longer nights and earlier starts? I also ask the noble Baroness to reconfirm all existing Recess dates, including those in February, and to do so with certainty. Will she also tell the House when it is intended that we shall have another Queen's Speech, and when this Session-the longest any of us can remember-will end? How many more Bills do the Government expect to force through this House before the Session concludes? At my last count, we still had 16 in progress and another 12 or 13 to come, and had done only 16 so far. Just how many more Bills do the Government expect to bring?
	May I perhaps give the Government a little advice before they embark on their next political programme? Will they ensure that, next time around, they have coherent, well worked-out Bills, and do not have more Bills in their programme than both Houses of Parliament can realistically manage and effectively scrutinise?
	This a programme of legislation that has been poorly thought through, badly managed from the centre and forced on an increasingly reluctant Parliament in a timeframe that is wholly unrealistic. I urge the Government to think again about their programme, and to consult the House properly about their timetable and what they put in for the rest of the Session.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Well, my Lords, as my dear old Aunt Rose would say, the noble Lord has a bit of a brass neck. However, I will of course address each of those points. Perhaps noble Lords should not read everything on politicshome.com before they bring information to the House. For example, the noble Lord referred to my having apparently announced the dates of the February half-term. The noble Lord will know that I never have. I know that politicshome.com has said so and that it has been tweeted, but it has never been the case in this House. I do not refer to any Recess dates after we return in January; I never have. Like the noble Lord, I do not refer to the date of the end of the Session. That is not something that happens; it is up to noble Lords to make their own calculations. When we know the progress of business, we will make a Statement, as the noble Lord did when the Labour Party was in government.
	This is a self-regulating House, with the implication that scrutiny of legislation cannot be curtailed except by the House itself. That is only right; it is one of the aspects of our work of which we have every reason to be proud. The corollary is that when the House chooses to dwell on a particular Bill, as it did on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill-on which we spent 17 days in Committee, which is more than double the usual maximum for the largest Bills-more time must then be found elsewhere if the scrutiny of the other Bills in a Government's legislative programme is not to suffer as a consequence.
	I should also make it clear that we have been used, over the past decade, to agreements by the usual channels to take a good number of the Committee stages of Bills in Grand Committee, off the Floor of the House. That kind of agreement has not been achievable this Session. This Session will have the lowest percentage of Bills in Grand Committee for nearly 10 years-since the Session of 2001-02. I know that because I was on the other side taking part in it all. As a result, pressure for time on the Floor of the House is acute and something has to give.
	The Opposition Chief Whip will recall that the Opposition refused to put into Grand Committee a Bill that was eminently suitable for that place. I refer to the Postal Services Bill on which the Opposition spokesperson performed a very valuable role. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, steered the Opposition through that Bill with great skill and Labour Party Back-Benchers also acted with great skill and scrutinised it carefully. But it was not an appropriate Bill for the Floor of the House. The Opposition insisted that it should take time on the Floor away from other Bills.
	There was consultation about business. Over the past five weeks, there has been consultation with the Opposition Chief Whip to seek certainty about how the Government could deliver their business without extending the sitting period and taking away a week from the summer Session. It is not normal process in this House to consult formally more widely, but I made sure that soundings were taken around the House. It was made very clear to me that, while noble Lords would not wish to extend the period beyond July, for some reason that I find quite difficult to understand, noble Lords on all sides of the House felt that it was quite appropriate for this place to be sitting during the Conservative Party conference, when my colleagues might wish to be elsewhere. That is indeed the final decision that was taken. The decision is not taken lightly. It is one to deal with ordinary business in an ordinary way. Scrutiny in this House, when it is done well, is a model for the world to follow.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the noble Baroness sits down-

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, while my noble friend must have taken a great deal of effort to avoid using the words pot, kettle and black, during the noble Lord's remarks, she should take it on board that it is a great pity that this Administration appear to be following the example of the previous Government by introducing too much legislation that has not been adequately thought through. It is a bad habit that was formed over the previous 10 years or so and we should be resisting it, not continuing it.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, it might be appropriate for me to be permitted to answer the questions as they are put. That might be helpful. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, will of course have the opportunity to ask a question.
	My noble friend has long experience in government. He will know that all Governments have to listen and learn and I will certainly do that.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Government Chief Whip say what advice both she and the Leader of the House have given to the Government on the suitability of legislation for pre-legislative scrutiny? The Government have failed to use that procedure to the full. The Government are, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said, trying to achieve too much too quickly, often with proposals that are later withdrawn because they are unworkable.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the Government have made it clear that they are very much in favour of extending pre-legislative scrutiny. That will happen. The Opposition will also be aware that in the first year of a new Government, as when I was sitting on the other side in 1997, it is not necessarily possible for a new Government to go through pre-legislative scrutiny without having a long hiatus. But it is the better model to follow and it is one that will be put within Government plans. I know that that will be welcomed by the House.

Lord Touhig: My Lords, how much will it cost to bring the House back for an extra week in October? If the noble Baroness is not able to tell us now, could she put that information in the Library?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as I said earlier on, this should not have been necessary. I was perhaps not quite as blunt as my noble friend Lord Tebbit would have liked. For once, I will be a little more like my noble friend. Had we had a more appropriate approach to scrutiny of other Bills then we would not be sitting an extra week. If Members of the Labour party wish to know how much they have cost the House, I am happy to tell them.

Lord Ryder of Wensum: My Lords, further to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Tebbit, will the noble Baroness undertake to use her best endeavours to ensure that her colleagues in the other place change or reform the introduction of the automatic guillotine for every piece of legislation that comes to your Lordships' House? That places an extra burden on your Lordships' House and clearly also on the Government Chief Whip. In the interests of democracy, the changes brought in by the Blair Government at the turn of the century are undemocratic and exceedingly harmful to British democratic traditions.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, my noble friend says what I hear from all sides of the House. There is a real anxiety, not just from those who have been Members of another place but also from those who have seen what happens there, that proper scrutiny is curtailed by a Government having control of the knife, as others opposite did in a Labour Government, or a guillotine. That is not the best way to run business. It is not the way that we choose to run business here. We came close to having to seek assistance from the House earlier this year. The House took a decision of which we can be proud that we want to move ahead without having guillotines in the House. As I said at the beginning, the corollary to that is that the House has to be self-regulating in the way that it carries through business. I feel, as I am sure does every Member of the House here, that that is the right way to go ahead; to have proper scrutiny but within a timeframe that is reasonable to deliver government business.

Lord Low of Dalston: My Lords, all noble Lords will know the difficulties that are caused every time that one has to absent oneself from this place to attend to other business. There is such a continuous current of affairs going on in the House that every time one absents oneself as a matter of necessity one is apt to miss something important that one would have wished to participate in. When this happens in the middle of a term it is obviously one's own responsibility, but when time is taken out of a recess in the way that has just been announced, the Chief Whip should be in no doubt as to the great difficulty that it causes.
	As far as one is able, one arranges one's other business to take place in the Recess. I arranged a major international conference for which I am responsible in the week before we were scheduled to return on 10 October. There is no way that I can cancel this conference. I shall have to miss the business in that week. I do not know at this stage how far the business will be business in which I wanted to take a major interest. It causes great difficulty when one is forced to miss business in the House because of other arrangements that one has made in the reasonable expectation that the dates will be free from House business. I do not know what soundings the Chief Whip took but she did not take soundings from me. I want her to be in no doubt as to the difficulty that these changes of arrangement can cause.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am perfectly in sympathy with the noble Lord Low. He is a hardworking Member of this House and certainly makes every best effort to be here for business. This is not like the stories that appeared in the press overnight-I do not know where they came from, as I certainly did not give any information to the press, and I state that very clearly for those who are tweeting this; I hope they will carry the rebuttal. This is not a matter of Peers being fed up-I shall not use the word that they used on the websites-with having to come back a week early because they were going to miss holidays or going skiing. That is the allegation being made.
	Peers take their work here very seriously, and I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Low, said. That is why I was making every best effort to avoid doing this. It is why I sought to come to agreements with the Opposition to avoid coming back a week early, but the Opposition found it impossible to agree to put other business in Grand Committee, which would have meant that we did not have to take another week. In fact, on one Bill that was offered to us in February to go into Grand Committee, before Whitsun the Opposition said that they had to change their mind. I do not blame them for that-I appreciate that political imperatives from the Leader of the Opposition can change things-but that is now public and not a matter for the usual channels. Certainly, every best effort was made by the Government to avoid this step but, regrettably, it is necessary to come back early October.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: Of course, we appreciate the difficulties caused by this backlog building up-and the noble Baroness has been very clear as to where the responsibility for that lies-but I wonder whether, for the benefit of those Peers who have other pressing engagements and who will find it very difficult to come back in that first week of October, she would consider consulting and timetabling business that does not involve critical legislation. Perhaps it could involve reducing the backlog of other business that does not require the attendance of all noble Lords in the manner that we attend regularly when we scrutinise legislation.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that we will consult the Opposition in the usual way to schedule business that is to the greatest convenience to the House but that, of course, takes into account the availability of the opposition Front Bench. We will make every best effort to achieve an amicable resolution.

Lord Grocott: All Oppositions always accuse all Governments of introducing too many Bills, and too many bad Bills, so let us take that as read and as common ground between the Government and the Opposition. What is fundamentally different about the present situation in at least two respects is, first, that the Government have legislated to provide for a five-year Parliament. They did so, as anyone can see if they care to read the Committee and Report proceedings, to enable them to plan their programme over a five-year predictable period. Therefore, they can know exactly how many Bills they need to introduce in each of the five years.
	The second thing that has changed as a result of a decision by this Government, despite strong opposition, is that this will be a two-year Session. I would think that is unique; it certainly has not happened for 40 years, and I doubt very much that it has happened since the Second World War, but perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether the period is any longer than that. In other words, were this a normal one-year Session, we would only just have had the Queen's Speech; it would have been in May, and we would be starting the new Session now that would complete next April or May. Those are unique advantages that the Government have had.
	I make no criticism of the noble Baroness, as she has a phenomenally difficult job-I know that very well indeed-so I offer her some very simple solutions to this problem. The Government know that they have five years, so why does not the Leader of the House and the noble Baroness, the Government Chief Whip, go to one of their friends in the Cabinet and do what she knows has to be done to explain the situation to one of the Secretaries of State who has a Bill about to be brought to this or to the other place-a Bill that will no doubt solve, as they all profess to, many of the problems facing mankind. She might suggest that it would not really be a disaster if that Bill, instead of being introduced in November or December this year, were introduced in May next year. That would not be a huge delay. The world will wait, and it would give her space in her programme. Alternatively, she can ask this House to carry over one or two Bills if the programme is in the kind of condition that she has described. I am sure the House would agree.
	I suggest one very simple way in which the noble Baroness could save us quite a lot of time. We are about to embark on a two-day debate on the abolition of the House of Lords. I advise her that my judgment of public opinion is that should she announce that the Government have decided not to proceed with this in the immediate future, the nation would remain calm.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is always something that I listen to even if I do not agree with it. He always delivers it in a very urbane manner. As a government Chief Whip, he was always one to be highly respected and indeed it was he who helped the House by starting to give notice of government business way in advance. On the other side, when we got into a position when the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, wanted to come back a week early, we then made sure that we curtailed business so that we did not have to. We assisted the then Government.
	The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, refers to unique circumstances. At the beginning of this Session the Government planned their business on the expectation of two things: first, that this House would carry out its normal procedure of scrutiny and would not take the 17 days in Committee that the Opposition decided were necessary on one Bill; and, secondly, that this House would accept the normal split of Bills between the Chamber and the Grand Committee in the usual way, which simply has not happened. That is why we have to return at the beginning of October. I am afraid that the House is going to have to observe the results of those two matters. We have tried for over five weeks now to reach an agreement with the Opposition. I have said three times that they have failed to come to that agreement and therefore we are in this position, which is regrettable for all of us.
	I know that this debate has now gone on for some time and that the Benches behind me were emptying. I ought to say in defence of my noble friends, since I have noticed some comments opposite about this, sotto voce, that they are interested in business but it is, at this very minute, the memorial service for Lord Pilkington across the road. That is where they are.

Welfare Reform Bill
	 — 
	First Reading

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Sports Grounds Safety Authority Bill
	 — 
	Third Reading

Bill passed.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
	 — 
	Committee (6th Day)

Relevant documents: 13th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 14th Report from the Constitution Committee and 11th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	Amendment 240M
	 Moved by Baroness Coussins
	240M: After Clause 119, insert the following new Clause-
	"Purchase of alcohol on behalf of children
	(1) In section 149(7)(b) of the Licensing Act 2003, for "level 5 on the standard scale" substitute "£10,000".
	(2) The amendment made by this section applies in relation to offences that are committed on or after the commencement of this section."

Baroness Coussins: My Lords, this amendment, supported by my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff, would insert a new clause in the section of the Bill that deals with selling alcohol to children. I first place on record my gratitude to the Minister for meeting me to discuss my concerns and for writing to me in detail about them. Nevertheless, I hope still that I might persuade her that my amendment merits further consideration and that she might agree to come back with something on Report.
	I should declare various interests. I am a former chief executive of the Portman Group and a former member of the Alcohol Education and Research Council. I currently work as a paid adviser on corporate responsibility to two drinks companies whose names are listed in the register. I emphasise that I provide them with non-parliamentary advice, and I have had no discussion about the Bill with either company.
	The Bill already proposes to double the maximum fine for persistently selling alcohol directly to children from £10,000 to £20,000. My amendment applies the same principle to the offence of purchasing alcohol on behalf of children, an offence that is often overlooked but which is regarded by many local police forces and local authorities as the more serious in terms of its prevalence. The offence of purchasing alcohol on behalf of children is commonly known as "proxy purchase" and occurs when someone over 18 agrees to go into licensed premises to buy alcohol in order to hand it over to a child aged under 18 waiting outside. The current maximum fine is £5,000, or level 5 on the standard scale. I suggest that if the Government believe that a strong message needs to be sent out on underage sales by doubling the fine for that offence by licensees, it follows logically and all the more strongly that a clear message needs also to be conveyed that proxy purchase by unscrupulous members of the public is completely socially unacceptable, immoral and illegal, and should attract rigorous enforcement with harsh penalties.
	As I said in the debate at Second Reading, the incidence of prosecution and conviction for this offence of proxy purchase may be low but is nevertheless much higher than for illegal sales direct to children. In 2009, the last year for which figures are available, there were only four prosecutions for persistently selling to children, compared to 29 for proxy purchase. It would be a wasted opportunity not to take advantage of the Bill to ramp up the maximum penalty in the same way as is envisaged for direct underage sales.
	I know that the Minister is rightly concerned that this legislation should be proportionate and consistent. I agree. I was a member of the Better Regulation Commission when it developed the five principles of better regulation, of which proportionality and consistency are two, and I believe that my amendment ticks exactly those boxes. If the Government think it is right, and therefore proportionate, on the basis of the prosecution figures I have just given, to double the maximum fine for persistent sales to children, then surely it would be consistent, right and proportionate to do the same for proxy purchase when we know that the level of harm and potential harm are at least as great.
	We know quite a bit of detail about which children are gaining access to alcohol through proxy purchase. A survey in 2008 of 11 to 15 year-olds for the National Health Service Information Centre revealed that a total of 34 per cent of these young children, some of them not even yet teenagers, got their alcohol from other people buying it for them-in some cases people who were related to them-but 18 per cent of them got it from strangers.
	When you look more closely at the figures, you begin to see just how worrying this behaviour is, how potentially vulnerable these children are and how important it is that we do everything we can to deter adults from agreeing to engage in proxy purchase. For example, although 18 per cent of children overall said that they had asked someone else other than a relative to buy alcohol for them, this figure rises to 41 per cent of 15 year-olds. Among the children who are drinking most heavily, defined as over 15 units a week, the figure rises to a staggering 88 per cent who used proxy purchase. When we compare the behaviour of boys and girls there are also significant differences, with 10 per cent of 13 year-old boys relying on proxy purchase but 14 per cent of girls. At age 15, that rises to 38 per cent of boys but 43 per cent of girls.
	I am especially concerned about the potential danger in which these very young girls are placing themselves by approaching strangers in the street and asking them to buy alcohol. If an adult is irresponsible enough to agree to do that, what other dangers or risks might these vulnerable girls be exposing themselves to? I emphasise that this survey shows proxy purchasing be a much more serious issue than under-18s buying alcohol for themselves. Only 6 per cent bought or attempted to buy alcohol from a shop, and only 4 per cent from a pub. The survey shows that the proportion of teenagers who manage to buy for themselves has declined significantly since 1996. I would not want to sweep that problem under the carpet, because it remains a fact that most of those few who do so are successful in achieving their purchase. The fact that some are not and that many more no longer even attempt to buy for themselves shows that the co-operative efforts of licensees, local authorities, the police and dedicated community groups promoting more rigorous use of proof of age at point of sale has been paying some dividends.
	Even so, the Government have seen fit to include in the Bill the doubling of the maximum fine for licensees who still sell to the under-aged. Fair enough, but why ignore the more pressing issue of proxy purchase when it would be simple to include a similar amendment along the lines that I have suggested? Another piece of research was published only last month by the Drinkaware Trust, this time concentrating on where slightly older teenagers, aged 15 to 17, get their alcohol. Here, too, we see that those who are drinking in the most risky and potentially vulnerable situations-outdoors, rather than at home, at a party or a friend's house-are the ones who most rely on proxy purchase, with 19 per cent-almost one in five-saying that they asked a passer-by to get them their alcohol from a shop.
	On the basis of all this evidence-and the Government say that they are committed to evidence-based policy-I urge the Minister to agree that my amendment would be a sensible and justified logical extension to this section of the Bill. As I said at Second Reading, the penalties for these offences are relatively meaningless unless the law is rigorously enforced. I hope that the Government will also be doing something to encourage the police, local authorities, trading standards and the licensed trade to do even more to stamp out illegal sales to children and proxy purchase. It might be a little more complicated than underage sales because it involves indentifying and pursuing members of the public rather than slapping an extra fine on licensees. But if this is the offence which is doing most harm to young drinkers, especially those who are most vulnerable because of their age, sex and consumption patterns, surely we must do whatever we can. I beg to move.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment in support of my noble friend Lady Coussins. I am grateful to the Minister for all her interest and concern over alcohol as a problem. I know that she has expressed a view that this is not the direction in which the Government wish to go, but I hope that she may be persuaded to think again. When we pass legislation such as this, we need to send a clear social message to the rest of society.
	There is some evidence that if you teach children to drink responsibly and socially at home they will be less likely to abuse alcohol. Sadly, that is now tremendously outweighed by the data of children being initiated into binge-drinking by adults proxy purchasing for them. Some of the statistics have already been alluded to, but there are many more. An interesting study from the Portman Group itself showed that one-third of adults have been asked to buy alcohol on behalf of someone under 18 and one-third of those have admitted to buying it. A quarter did not realise that it was an offence; 30 per cent did so because they felt intimidated by the young person; 30 per cent thought that it would not do any harm; and 70 per cent did not realise that they could be prosecuted for doing so. That demonstrates an enormous ignorance both of the criminality involved and of the harm that they are doing to children. It is also a terrible indictment of young people that their behaviour was so intimidating that they pushed someone into buying alcohol for them. As has already been said, the number of prosecutions is horribly light.
	What about the impact on these young people in the long term? About 7,600 school-age children are admitted to hospital annually with alcohol-related conditions. These are not just minor conditions; some are admitted in coma with alcohol toxicity, liver failure and vomiting which may be so severe that they become severely dehydrated and need intravenous rehydration. We know that a car is more likely to be involved in an accident when the passengers have had too much to drink-even if the driver is not drunk-as their irresponsible behaviour may result in the driver not being able to concentrate.
	These young people also suffer from chronic problems. They have a higher incidence of depression and mental health problems in later life, weight loss and chronic liver damage. It is clear from a study in the British Medical Journal that men who drink more than seven units a week at the age of 16 are one and a half times more likely than light drinkers to binge drink in their 30s and 40s. By not sending out a clear message to society, we are complicit in encouraging youngsters into a binge-drinking habit. We are saying, "It is okay, we will turn a blind eye to it", but the size of the problem means that it cannot be looked at with Nelson's eye. I commend the amendment to the Government and hope that they will take it very seriously.

Lord Condon: My Lords, I support the amendment for the reasons set out so eloquently by the two noble Baronesses who have spoken to it. I realise that it is not a natural fit with the Bill and that it moves it into territory for which it may not have been originally designed. However, it provides the Government with an opportunity to reinforce the condemnation of the proxy purchasing of alcohol by adults for children. At one end of the scale this proxy purchasing can be due to chance and the stupidity of an adult responding to a request from a child or young person to buy the alcohol, but often it is more sinister. Some adults hang around young people and proxy purchasing of alcohol can be the beginning of grooming children and young people to draw them into inappropriate sexual behaviour, drugs misuse or even into membership of gangs on estates. Proxy purchasing by adults is a way of enabling them to talk to the youngsters and draw them into inappropriate behaviour. It is largely the result of stupidity and indifference but can be more sinister. As I say, although the amendment is not a natural fit with the Bill it provides the Government and the Minister with an opportunity to reinforce the message that we condemn this behaviour on the part of adults. I hope that they will find a way to support the aim of the amendment.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, we on this side of the Committee support the amendment in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Findlay. They have given us a very graphic set of reasons why it would fit well with the intentions of the Bill. We have also heard some very scary statistics. In essence, the amendment would close a loophole. The Government may, on reflection, agree that that is the case. We understand that proxy purchasing is now regarded by the off trade, the on trade and the trading standards groups as the biggest challenge facing alcohol sales. The amendment would also bring the fine into line with the current level imposed for persistently selling alcohol to children, which is why I think that it is a good way of closing the loophole.
	However, we are advised that retailers are often frustrated with the lack of action being taken against those who deliberately buy alcohol to be consumed by those who are under age. Therefore, although we support the amendment and hope that the Government will consider it favourably, there needs to be a commitment to place greater emphasis on identifying these people and seeing through the legislative consequences of the amendment, which is that action must be taken. As we have heard from the previous speaker, that is an important aspect of what we are about. However, the amendment justifies itself in its own terms.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, we are legislating in Clause 119 to double the maximum fine available to punish the persistent sale of alcohol to persons under 18 from £10,000 to £20,000. The amendment seeks go further in doubling the maximum fines available for two other offences in the Licensing Act 2003, from their current level of £5,000 to £10,000. The offences relate to where a person buys or attempts to buy alcohol on behalf of a person under 18, or where a person buys or attempts to buy alcohol for consumption on licensed premises by a person under the age of 18.
	At a first glance, we can see merit in the proposed new clause. My noble friend and I are absolutely with the noble Baroness in her strong feelings about the proxy purchase of alcohol for minors, and we take this very seriously. I hope that the noble Baroness will recall how we have responded to related amendments in earlier discussions in Committee. However, it is important to maintain consistency in the sentencing framework.
	In addition to the two offences that I mentioned, a number of other offences currently exist for offences in the sale of alcohol to those under 18 or the consumption by those under 18 on licensed premises. They include knowingly allowing consumption of alcohol on licensed premises by an individual under 18. For all these other offences, the penalty is a maximum sentence of £5,000-level 5 on the standard scale in the sentencing framework.
	In our view, however, the offence of persistently selling alcohol to children is distinct and distinguishable from the other offences in the Licensing Act and merits separate treatment in the Bill. It is far the more serious offence, not simply a one-off sale to or involving a person under the age of 18. This is reflected in the higher fine that the courts can impose for it. The offence of persistent sales to a person under 18 was created specifically to target irresponsible businesses rather than individual offenders. Indeed, there is an alternative to criminal prosecution for such premises-a punitive period of closure.
	The fine for the offence of persistent sales, which stands at £10,000, was always intended to be set above the level 5 fine in the sentencing framework. The fine was high to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to reflect the intention of targeting irresponsible businesses.
	In the Government's view, increasing the maximum fine for the offence of the proxy purchase of alcohol for children, but not for others where individual adults have been responsible for providing or attempting to provide alcohol to children, could blur the existing distinctions in fines under the sentencing framework between offences targeting individuals rather than premises. In summary, we believe that the existing penalty for the proxy purchase of alcohol-a fine not exceeding £5,000-is sufficiently punitive for an offence by an individual. Yes, it is a serious offence, but not one that should be singled out for the provision of a greater fine than those for similar offences in the Licensing Act 2003 relating to the provision of alcohol to minors.
	For these reasons, and having thought about it carefully, we believe that the offence of persistent sales of alcohol to children is sufficiently separate and easy to distinguish from the range of other alcohol-related offences in the Licensing Act. We want to send a clear message to irresponsible businesses that the persistent sale of alcohol to children is totally unacceptable. This is why we want to double the fine. All that I have said, however, should not be taken to mean that we will not look at the other alcohol-related criminal offences and consider whether further changes should be made in cases such as those that noble Lords have raised. Indeed, the Government are committed to a full examination of sentencing policy across the board. I can also say that we will look at the points raised by noble Lords in the context of the alcohol strategy that will be published later this year. For the reasons that I have outlined, we ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Baroness Coussins: My Lords, I am grateful for the support expressed by other noble Lords for the amendment. I cannot say that I accept the logic that proxy purchase is an offence of such a different order from persistent sales to children as the Government suggest. I stress that I am not seeking to make the maximum fine the same, but just to apply the same principle of doubling that fine as a signal that the harm and potential harm behind that offence is recognised.
	I do not accept that my amendment would blur the distinction between the offences. However, I am encouraged by the Government's signal that the dangers of proxy purchase will be looked at again in the context of the revised strategy that we are expecting in the autumn and of a more widespread look at sentencing policy in general. Perhaps we can return to the issue, because it will continue to cause harm, and there is a higher incidence of proxy purchase than of persistent sales to children. The issue will not go away but, for the moment, I am content to withdraw my amendment.
	Amendment 240M withdrawn.
	Amendment 240N not moved.
	Clause 120: Early morning alcohol restriction orders
	Amendment 240P not moved.
	Amendment 240PA
	 Moved by Lord Clement-Jones
	240PA: Clause 120, page 79, line 15, leave out "and club premises certificates"

Lord Clement-Jones: I shall speak to all the amendments in this group, other than Amendments 240V and 240X, and also touch briefly on clause stand part. I nevertheless support Amendments 240V and 240X, which seem extremely sensible.
	All my amendments in the group are designed to mitigate Clause 120, which radically alters the impact of Sections 172A through to 172E of the Licensing Act introduced by the Crime and Security Act last year, in that they can now be imposed from midnight to 6 am instead of from 3 am to 6 am, and on the say-so of the licensing authority, not the full council as before.
	First, I take Amendments 240PA and 240PB, which are designed to remove private members' clubs from the scope of the clause. The proposed amendments to the Licensing Act 2003 in the Bill-the late-night levy and the early morning alcohol restriction orders-are designed to tackle issues relating to licensed premises, largely on the high street, that sell alcohol for consumption on the premises to members of the public. In contrast, private members' clubs are not selling to members of the public but are membership-based. They also, by and large, are not positioned on the high street or close to centres of the night-time economy, because their original remit, which has not changed, was to serve and be at the centre of the community in which they were located. They not only provide a valuable service to their members but have responsibility for the conduct of their members in the community. They have a self-regulatory process, which enables censure by the committee of individual members' conduct.
	On the basis that there is self-regulation and the recognition that private members' clubs do not contribute to the issues which have prompted the proposed provisions of the levy and restriction orders, the clubs should be exempt from the measures. Not only are they particularly onerous in the extra revenue that will be required to pay for the levy, which we will deal with later, the loss of facilities after midnight under the early morning restriction order provisions will further curtail the revenue stream which is critical for their survival. The membership of clubs is reducing and revenues are decreasing. DCMS statistics show that, as well as all the pubs that have closed, the net reduction in clubs operating with a club premises certificate has reduced by 300 per year from 2008 to 2010.
	Younger members of the community in which the private members' club thrived now have a much wider choice of venues, which are on the high street, and have other interests which do not include the traditional club environment. Nevertheless, those clubs and their facilities continue to be important, and we should protect them against changes which will have a significantly detrimental effect on their survival.
	Moving on to Amendments 240Q to 240W, Amendment 240Q makes a modest proposal of a 1 am start time for EMROs, rather than midnight. Midnight is far too early in the circumstances and out of step with today's customer expectations. Frankly, putting the beginning of the EMRO at midnight could be a business-killer for many businesses. Amendment 240R removes the restriction on temporary event notices which an EMRO would impose.
	Amendment 240T provides for personal licence holders to be included in the definition of affected person. A number of pub companies and breweries hold the premises licences for the premises they own and rent or lease out as individual businesses. While all tenants and lessees will be personal licence holders, they will not necessarily be premise licence holders and would therefore be excluded from the local consultation process under the current provisions. This amendment ensures that they will have a voice in any local consultation on the introduction of an EMRO.
	Amendment 240W would ensure that the imposition of early morning restriction orders does not apply to New Year's Eve and thus undermine the opportunity for celebration in those areas where they do exist.
	Turning to Amendments 240RA and 240RB, there is no mechanism currently for a review to determine whether EMROs remain necessary or appropriate. If EMROs are to provide an opportunity to redress the problems that have arisen, such an opportunity will be lost if they are applied without limit. Without such a provision there will be no incentive for local authorities to undertake a review of an order or to determine whether it is still required. Businesses that suffer loss of income and value as a result of an EMRO, through, as it is admitted, no fault of their own, will be deprived of the opportunity to revisit the circumstances surrounding the placing of an order and will suffer permanent damage as a result.
	Two years is a reasonable timeframe within which councils, police and the hospitality trade and others can work together to address the fundamental problems that have led to the imposition of an EMRO. EMROs will impose significant burdens on those businesses upon which they fall and it must be right for those businesses to be able to see an end to the restriction through the need to reapply after two years for a further EMRO which would have to be re-justified. As it stands, there is no incentive for a council to lift an EMRO once it is in place, given that the council will have to repeat the procedures contained under proposed new Sections 172A and 172B. This amendment ensures that the council cannot simply leave an EMRO in place without reconsideration of the need.
	Moving on to proposed new Section 172C, trading hours that have been granted form part of the intrinsic value of a business and the permanent removal of later opening could damage the long-term value of a business. Were licences to be changed to reflect the removal of those hours, they could only be restored by a reapplication at the termination of the EMRO, when there would be no guarantee of the permissions previously granted. At the same time, conditions may have been placed on those businesses which reflect the later opening hours employed by them. A restriction of those hours would very likely change the nature of that business such that the conditions would no longer be necessary or appropriate. Given that those businesses could already have suffered a significant loss of business and shed employment as a result, a further burden of conditions that relate to the later opening could impose further costs on a business that might already be struggling. These amendments give effect to the suspension of such conditions.
	I appreciate that such conditions will not always be readily identifiable as they might be more related to the nature of the business rather than specifically attached to the later hours. A nightclub that has had its hours restricted to midnight might need to reconstruct its business since the closing time makes it unattractive as a nightclub. In such cases the condition for door staff might be dispensed with or reduced without any detriment to the licensing objectives, while allowing the business to reduce part of its costs.
	The need for the legislation to take account of the cost burdens imposed on the businesses that are affected, through no particular fault of their own necessarily, reflects the potentially unfair and untargeted nature of the proposed measures. I am not going to steal the thunder of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on clause stand part, but the number of amendments I have tabled regarding this particular clause demonstrates the very difficult nature of not only the current amendments but also the original legislation contained in proposed new Section 172A onwards.
	The ministerial forward and the Government's response to the consultation on the Bill recognise and acknowledge that the majority of premises are well run businesses. The Minister has stated that the measures to be introduced have been designed to be used flexibly by licensing authorities to avoid penalising the majority of premises who sell alcohol responsibly. Unfortunately, the early morning restriction orders do exactly that, in so far as businesses that have applied for and been granted hours beyond midnight, until 1 am or 2 am, for example, will be penalised, through no fault of their own, if such orders are imposed, despite the fact that those businesses have not been the cause of any trouble leading to the consideration of the EMRO. They will be simply swept up in a requirement to cease trading at midnight.
	It is not clear that under this current clause, and indeed under the original legislation introduced last year, there will be satisfactory exemptions from EMROs. It is important that exemptions recognise best practice and social responsibility initiatives rather than being based solely on premises type. This would ensure that well run businesses that would not qualify for an exemption according to premises type are not unduly penalised by the provisions. Rather than introducing such a blanket measure, which itself risks large numbers of customers coming out on to the streets at the same time, just like the bad old days, would it not be more practical to tackle the premises that are the source of any problems rather than penalising responsible premises?
	In terms of the flaws in the clause and in the original legislation, I very much hope that the Minister will agree to reconsider and come back with something far more satisfactory on Report.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I added my name to the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and also to the clause stand part. I do not intend to go through the basket of amendments that that noble Lord has moved but will confine my remarks to clause stand part and to one amendment in particular, Amendment 240Q, which relates to proposed new Section 172A(3)(a) in Clause 120(3), where it says "begin no earlier than midnight".
	This amendment and this clause are so important because it seems to me that the Government are attempting to change the policy of late-night bars and how they operate. They are in effect saying, "We are going to make it very easy for anybody to close everything at midnight". For operators who have a 3 am licence, it is an incredibly important part of their business, for a number of reasons. In fact, that is often the bit of the business that makes the whole operation profitable. In my experience there has been no great push from the police to bring everything forward to midnight. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, in many areas the police would prefer it to be 3 am because people start leaving from midnight onwards and there is a gradual trickle of people going home, as opposed to the ugly rush there would be at midnight, leading to all kinds of problems of disorder. At 3 am most people have gone, with a few stragglers remaining. Equally, there does not seem to be any evidence that local authorities have been pushing to bring everything back to midnight.
	I ask my noble friend the Minister to explain whether this really is a change of government policy by the back door, because that is what it looks like to the industry-if so, the Government should be honest and open and say what it is-or is it an attempt merely to give more powers to close down operators who are seen to be operating either out of their licence hours or breaking their licence conditions? There is no evidence so far in the industry that local authorities have any problems with operators who should be closed down. It is quite easy for local authorities to close down an operator, although there is concern about the legal costs of doing so. But most operators regard their licence as so important to their business that the last thing they want to do is jeopardise it. We need some explanation from my noble friend of what really is meant by Clause 120, as well as a satisfactory reply to deal with the concerns felt by many operators in the industry-and indeed not forgetting the poor customers.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, if the analysis of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, regarding a change in government policy is correct, I welcome it. It is what the public want and, although some in the business sector will be unhappy about it, I think that overall this set of amendments would undermine the Government's attempt to respond to the clamour which has increasingly grown up among the public at large and has been reflected in some of the work done in the consultation. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not backtrack and that they will dig in firmly and hold to their course on this. The public will certainly support them in that.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend-to the extent of New Year's Eve, at any rate. I have Amendment 240V in this group, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has added his name. It would provide for permitted exemption categories and exempted days, and is part of a continued conversation about how far local variances should be reflected and the extent to which they should be centrally prescribed. Noble Lords will not be surprised that I always find myself at the local end of the spectrum.
	This matter was brought to us by the Local Government Association. It seems that licensing authorities should be able to determine the categories of premises to be exempted from EMROs in their local area. This would not be novel, even in the context of the Bill, as it would mirror the late-night levy exemptions that licensing authorities can decide locally. There seems to be no logic for having different systems, particularly as I understand from the LGA that the Home Office has proposed to use the same definitions for categories of possible exempted premises for EMROs as for the late-night levy. The broader point, as I said, is local determination.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, perhaps I may make a very brief gloss on the speech of my namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. Reflecting back to the debates on the Licensing Bill in 2003, I think it would be fair to say-and I hope that those who were in the Chamber at that time would agree-that the arguments against the then Bill were led very much by those who had a lot of London experience. People who have a lot of London experience endeavour to mobilise opinion through the civic trust across the country, but it took quite a long time for that communication to take place during the passage of the Bill. It would be fair to say that those away from London were disagreeably surprised by some of the consequences of the Bill when they arrived in practice. I cannot sense totally from the speeches of my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Astor how far they are centring on London experience in their observations but I think it is necessary to realise that we are dealing with a national issue.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, I confess at the start that I have a bit of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe and his feeling that midnight is a good time to draw a curtain across many outside activities. I certainly always try to be in bed in 10 pm, although perhaps that is a baby-boomer problem. I like to sit in bed with a cup of cocoa looking at "News at Ten", reflecting on the events of the day and preparing well for the events in this House and other places where one has to play one's part.
	However, on reflection, I think that we are hearing too much of a puritan strand here. The amendments raise a number of questions on which we need to think hard about what we should be saying to the country in terms of how we reflect on the relationship between the nanny state and those who have to live here. If there is a change of policy, I think it is probably wrongly focused, and the amendments expose that. It is clear that one has to deal with bad operators-a point made by those who have spoken before-but there is a danger here that, due to the way in which the Bill is currently phrased, it will catch everyone, and that will be bad.
	Surely a blanket EMRO running from midnight is not going to be effective. It will severely damage those businesses unfairly caught by the legislation and the consequences could be severe for the night-time economy. I am particularly concerned about small live music venues that operate with a licence past midnight. Capturing them in an EMRO would do enormous harm and could damage the UK's rich cultural diversity, of which we are so proud. At this time, many small venues are struggling to remain economically viable, and for venues that might get caught in such a blanket provision, this extension comes at a very bad time.
	An EMRO applied indiscriminately to all businesses in a given area, as opposed to being imposed on individual premises known to contribute to alcohol-related disorders, would surely unfairly discriminate against responsible pubs and clubs, which is why we are arguing for exemptions. I particularly welcome the amendment concerning New Year's Eve, and not just because of my Scottish background.
	Perhaps I may give an example that might highlight the problems. It is an imagined live music venue-a small jazz club. A licensing authority has issued an early-morning restriction order to cover the boundaries of the whole city centre. Around the corner from a few known trouble spots is a small jazz café, whose clientele is characterised by, let us say, a more mature music lover. It is a small venue operating on a very tight margin but is well loved by its regulars, and it is a place where jazz musicians enjoy performing and jazz fans enjoy congregating. The club is busiest between midnight and 2 am. However, let us say that also within the city centre is a hotel with a casino. As a result of an EMRO, the jazz club will be forced to stop serving alcohol at midnight. It will therefore be compelled to reduce the number of musicians that it books and could gradually lose its clients to other venues exempted from the EMRO. If its revenue falls, it will be forced to close. Meanwhile, the hotel with a casino sees a rise in its bar takings well past midnight. Is that what we are trying to achieve? I think not.
	Like the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I think that the provisions in the Bill are too broad in application, too aggressive in what they are trying to achieve and perhaps too puritan.

Baroness Browning: My Lords, I suspect from what I have heard in this debate that I am going to end up having "nanny" in front of my name. However, I shall be a benign, jazz-loving nanny, so perhaps that will be all right.
	An early-morning restriction order is an uncommenced power that already exists under the Licensing Act 2003 and will allow licensing authorities to restrict sales of alcohol in the whole or part of their area for any specified period between 3 am and 6 am. The fact that it is an uncommenced order made us look again at what needed to be improved in the previous legislation.
	I was asked whether this was a change in policy on the part of the Government. These orders are a power that local authorities can use to restrict the supply of alcohol from licensed premises and clubs and at temporary events for a period of one or more nights beginning at or after midnight and ending at or before 6 am. We are committed to ensuring that licensing authorities and enforcement agencies are given the right tools to address alcohol-related problems, and we see this as a necessary tool to enable them to have more flexibility to deal with specific problems within their areas. At the same time, we need to balance this measure by promoting a healthy night-time economy to benefit businesses and the communities that they serve. I am confident that this proposal will provide the licensing authorities with an additional tool to deliver these aims. It will be up to them to decide whether they use it at all and how they use it.
	I want to prevent any concerns that EMROs applied from midnight will unfairly penalise responsible premises that regularly trade between the hours of midnight and one o'clock. Those are not quite the same as the hours that the noble Lord mentioned in respect of his small jazz club but there are premises that go on beyond midnight. I acknowledge that the majority of retailers trade responsibly. However, I say to my noble friend Lord Astor that residents and residents groups have told us that the night-time economy generates a significant amount of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour and that these problems typically surface from midnight onwards. Indeed, not all serious crime is as a result of alcohol but 15 per cent of serious crime is committed after midnight.
	There will be exemptions from EMROs set centrally by the Government in secondary legislation. These will ensure that retailers who operate responsibly are not unfairly penalised by the introduction of an EMRO, and we will of course be consulting on this. For that reason, I ask my noble friend not to press that particular amendment.

Viscount Astor: May I ask my noble friend a question before she leaves that subject because I know that she has a huge number of amendments to reply to? She spoke about crime committed after midnight, which is certainly true, but does she accept that the statistics show that the majority of crime is committed much later that-at two, three or four o'clock in the morning? Therefore, to say that midnight is the cut-off which would help that is not correct or particularly fair to those operators. Does she also accept, which is very important, that if there is a tendency by the Government and local authorities to determine that midnight will be the new relevant hour, the effect will be to put half the operators out of business, which will create a much greater problem of social disruption and crime than there is at the moment?

Baroness Browning: I understand the point that my noble friend is making but I reiterate that this is a flexible option for local authorities. They will know where the hotspots are and whether things happen on a particular night of the week. They will have the flexibility to make sure that if they intend to exercise the option-it will be optional-to introduce an EMRO, they can scale the EMRO according to the problem that presents in their locality. It does not have to start at midnight or finish at 6 am but it is between those hours that an EMRO can apply. Just on that point, because I sense that noble Lords feel that this is a draconian measure, it strengthens the licensing authorities' powers in the sense that it gives them an additional tool in the box, but to get that balance right it has the flexibility that I hope will not create the concerns that businesses might feel, as represented today. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones mentioned that the full council would not decide to make an EMRO. It is the case with the existing legislation, and will still be the case that the decision will be made by the full council. That has not changed at all in the updating of the legislation.
	Moving on to Amendments 240PA to 240SA and the question of private clubs, I recognise the intention of noble Lords to remove private club premises certificates from the effect of an EMRO. There are, of course, clubs and clubs. I am sure that in any private club, of which noble Lords are members, propriety is observed in their proceedings, whatever the time of the day or night. I see noble Lords trying not to catch my eye on this, so they may know. It is important to note that antisocial behaviour and crime and disorder are not necessarily attributed to one premises but a cluster of premises in a concentrated area. There is no evidence to suggest that clubs do not contribute to these types of problems in the night-time economy. The Government do not want to penalise those businesses that operate responsibly and as such, if the licensing authority decides to impose an EMRO in the local area, businesses, including all clubs will be able to make a relevant representation and provide evidence that they do not contribute to late-night crime and disorder and antisocial behaviour.
	At this point, I should say to my noble friend Lord Astor, that on many occasions as a Member of Parliament I went out on Friday and Saturday nights with the police in small Devon market towns where they have perhaps one or two clubs and some late-night licences. Although I completely admire the work that the police and other agencies do at that time of night, it has not been my experience as a Member of Parliament that all antisocial behaviour, including things that are well in the frame of criminality occur after 2 am or 3 am. I was prompted to go out with the police on one occasion because between the hours of midnight and one in the morning, small shopkeepers regularly complained that their shop fronts were kicked in. I would say to my noble friend that within the scope of EMROs and the procedure to be followed in a licensing authority introducing an EMRO into the area, there will be plenty of scope for businesses to make their case, if they feel that they have one. None the less we feel that it is an important tool that licensing authorities will welcome.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: From these Benches, I support the Government and the way in which the legislation has been drafted, provided that it is enacted and applied with the flexibility that the Minister is describing. I do not do so in the spirit of being too puritanical, I hope. Living in the middle of the city of Chester and observing the streets in the early hours of the morning sometimes, and indeed relating to a whole new movement of what are called street pastors when churches seek to pick up some of the consequences of late-night activities in city centres, and contrasting the average experience in this country from what you find in many continental countries and the lack of civilised behaviour comparatively in this country, the Government are on the right lines provided that there is the flexibility to project the small jazz club, or whatever. Notwithstanding the anxieties expressed elsewhere, the Government can know that from these Benches, without a shred of puritanical spirit, we support them.

Baroness Browning: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I am, of course, familiar with the work of street pastors who give up their time voluntarily, particularly to ensure that people who have consumed too much alcohol are able to get home safely. I commend their work. As a new Minister with a new responsibility for alcohol and drugs policy in my portfolio, it strikes me that I need to dig deeper than looking at the solutions to late-night drinking and look at the causes of why street pastors and others are now required to carry out this valuable work. It seems that we spend a lot of time talking about the consequences. I hope that in my time as a Minister at the Home Office I can try to dig deeper than that to see whether we can do something. It is a long-time ambition, I know. Nothing will happen overnight to change this culture, as I mentioned in a previous debate on the subject. Far too many people-not just teenagers kicking over the traces-believe that they have not had a good time or a good night out unless they get absolutely paralytic. We must try to address the cause as well as deal with the consequences for the rest of the community.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: We on this side welcome that statement. Throughout this debate we have been trying to engage with the question that the issues we are addressing in the Bill are but a superficial aspect, important though it may be, relative to the point that she has just made about how the cultural effects are coming forward. Does she intend to take this forward, not in her nanny mode of course-this is much more in her policy advocacy role? Will she take into account the fact that we need to look again and will return later in the Bill to the question of how drugs, alcohol, and tobacco all interact? It is not just an alcohol-only problem.

Baroness Browning: I agree with that statement. We need to look at the combination of drink and drugs. Very often the consequences are exacerbated as a result of the combination of those two substances. I am almost beginning to sound in my own head like a nanny. I do not want to sound like that; I was young in the 1960s so I do not want to sound too prissy about all of this. However it is a serious problem and I welcome the opportunity to address it.
	Moving on to Amendment 240R and particularly TENs, which hopes to prevent a situation whereby a temporary event has been organised in advance and has to be cancelled because an EMRO has been imposed. I understand those concerns, but I point out that the process of making an EMRO will not take place overnight or without proper consultation. It is also important to remember that EMROs will apply only to a specific area for a set time between midnight and 6 am. Anyone planning a temporary event could therefore choose to hold it in a different part of the local authority area, or restrict their TEN to include the sale of alcohol up to but not after midnight. Therefore, there is flexibility.
	Amendment 240T concerns affected persons. I acknowledge that the amendment intends to include a personal licence holder as an affected person in respect of the early-morning restriction orders. I realise that this would enable personal licence holders to make relevant representations to the licensing authority on a proposed early-morning restriction order. However, there is already a provision for personal licence holders to make a relevant representation in relation to an early-morning restriction order. Relevant representations can be made by affected persons, responsible authorities and any other person: they would not be excluded. Personal licence holders will be entitled to make a relevant representation, as any other person will, and therefore the amendment is not necessary.
	Amendments 240V, 240W and 240X concern exemptions, which several noble Lords mentioned. They are important. Although the exemption categories for EMROs will be set centrally by the Government, licensing authorities will still have discretion in other areas. For example, the licensing authority will be able to decide during which hours the EMRO will apply, whether it will apply on every day or on particular days, whether it will run for a limited or unlimited period and whether it will apply to all or part of the licensing authority area. There is a lot of flexibility there to deal with problems without the regulations being too heavy to apply.
	The Government intend to exempt certain notable candidates from EMROs. My noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lady Hamwee in particular mentioned New Year's Eve. We are also very conscious that more royal celebrations are coming up next year that might fall into this category. It is also important to note that the Government recently held a series of EMRO working groups with key partners to discuss possible categories of exemption from EMROs. We are considering the feedback from these working groups and intend to hold a public consultation in the coming months on exemption categories and dates. I am very confident that there will be every opportunity to make sure that the nanny state does not intervene too much at times like New Year's Eve and on special national occasions.
	Amendment 240RA applies to licensing authorities. They will be able to use their discretion to determine whether an EMRO will apply for a limited or an unlimited period. This will ensure that licensing authorities will be able to consider the situation in their local area. We are trying to give flexibility, but it is not just a question of flexibility: it is about targeting hotspots. If the EMRO is too broad and brings too many people into the catchment area who are not running businesses that are in any way contributing to the problems of the night-time economy, the local authority will be best placed to identify this. I am concerned that the proposal to put in the Bill a two-year time limit for an EMRO would take away that flexibility. It is important to note that licensing authorities will be able to vary or revoke an EMRO at any time that they feel it is appropriate. For example, if a licensing authority sets a time limit on an EMRO and the problem is then resolved, there is no reason why it cannot revisit it and decide to lift it. This means that, in revoking an EMRO, a licensing authority can respond very particularly when a situation in its area improves.
	Amendment 240RB concerns the requirement that licensing authorities must specify a date when the EMRO will cease. Licensing authorities are required to state the commencement date of the EMRO on the order. I recognise the intention of noble Lords to add a requirement for licensing authorities to state the date on which the order will cease. Of course, the licensing authority can specify whether an EMRO will run for a limited or unlimited period and will already be able to specify the end date of an order if it runs for a limited period. However, if the authority decides to impose an EMRO for an unlimited period, clearly there would be no end date. However, it has that choice, as well as the power of revocation. The amendment would deprive licensing authorities of the flexibility and discretion that we seek to achieve in the Bill.
	This has been a useful debate. There is quite a lot of common ground in all parts of the House on some of these measures, and I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before that happens-and I dare say that it will-perhaps I may ask about exemptions. The Minister talked about working parties: that is all to the good. However, I am not sure that she addressed Amendment 240V, which would allow local authorities to categorise their own exemptions-but I may have missed that.

Baroness Browning: My Lords, local authorities will be allowed to have their own exemptions, but that will be part of the consultation that is taking place.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very thoughtful and useful response, which helpfully went through the different amendments and added quite a lot to our interpretation of what is before us. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor for his support on the amendments and on the clause stand part debate. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for her support at least for the New Year's Eve exemption, and to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his support on the stand part debate.
	We have quite a lot of common ground, which revolves around flexibility. What worries me somewhat is that the flexibility is all one way. I will come to the issue of the consultation process, which will be extremely important. I do not think that there are any puritans in the House. Certainly, I would not regard the right reverend Prelate as a puritan in this regard. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, might just qualify on this ground. I do not see where the clamour is coming from-

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: As there are two Lord Brookes, will the noble Lord make clear about whom he is speaking?

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we have had a useful debate about exemptions and I would certainly exempt my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville from that description.
	I regard this as a very important debate because of the potential impact if these provisions are not applied flexibly. I took quite a lot of comfort from the fact that this provides a range of tools, timings and geography that will be very beneficial. I certainly would not accuse the Minister of being a nanny. However, there is something of a difference in philosophy. The powers of the local authority will be pretty wide. She said that she was not favourably disposed to an amendment-

Baroness Browning: I apologise for interrupting my noble friend and hope that he will forgive me: I wish to put something on the record. I was asked by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about whether EMRO exemptions would be decided locally and I am afraid that I gave her the wrong answer. It is levies that the local licensing authority will have an opportunity to issue locally: EMROs will be a centrally decided package. I apologise for that.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I worry that there will be no review mechanism for these EMROs unless the local authority decides that there should be. Of course, local businesses will be able to make representations both at the point that the Minister described when the EMRO is being considered, and no doubt during the course of the EMRO in terms of demonstrating that the original problem has gone away or been dealt with or whatever. However, what worries me is that there will be no mechanism that the business can rely on, at the point where the EMRO falls due for review and when the time is up, to ensure that a full and proper debate can take place.
	The most important issue here is how that consultation is going to take place. I was very interested in the way in which the Minister described the process; for instance, the consultation on exemptions. I do not know whether it will be statutory guidance or whether an order will come before this House or, indeed, who would be consulted in that process. It would be extremely valuable to get from the Minister an indication, even at this point, about which cohort of people would be consulted because there are strong views about this. The real, deep worry that people have is about the potentially blanket nature of these EMROs.

Baroness Browning: It would be a full public consultation. The review mechanism is judicial review.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, that is deeply reassuring to us lawyers, but I am afraid it is not very reassuring to the owners of businesses because they will simply have to place themselves in the hands of my colleagues and myself in challenging these orders on the grounds that no reasonable council would have imposed them. That is a very tall order.

Viscount Astor: Far be it from me to try to deprive my noble friend of business, but does he agree that one of the problems is that almost no operators can afford judicial review unless they are part of a large chain?

Lord Clement-Jones: Absolutely. That is only going to add to the burdens on business. Although I accept that the Minister has gone as far as her brief will allow her, I seriously ask her to give further consideration to this. I was delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, had to say about his enthusiasm for live music, but the reason why he was talking about it was the potential impact on small venues and live music in areas where local councils have decided that they do not like what is happening in other places-not necessarily in the small clubs but in the large boozers, so to speak. That is sweeping up everybody into one single pot with one remedy. Although I have heard quite a lot today from the Minister that was reassuring about the ability to deliver flexibility, I do not think we have heard quite enough yet. The least convincing response was on TENs. If you have a TEN, and an EMRO is opposed, you can have a bit of a consultation on it, but actually the remedy is to move your event in time or space. That seems pretty onerous and jolly unfair if you are a local community group and you have to shift yourself in that way after an EMRO has been imposed.
	I look forward to further dialogue with the Minister and very much hope that we will continue that, even before Report, on certain areas of these reforms of the Licensing Act. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 240PA withdrawn.
	Amendments 240PB to 240RC not moved.
	Amendment 240S had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendments 240SA to 240X not moved.
	Clause 120 agreed.
	Clause 121 : Suspension of licence or certificate for failing to pay annual fee
	Amendment 240Y had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment 240Z
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	240Z: Clause 121, page 82, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 83

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this takes us to the clause on fees and non-payment. I shall speak also to Amendments 240XB, 240XC, 240XD, 240XE and 240XG. These amendments are anti central prescription and pro local discretion. In many places, the Bill seems not only very prescriptive but unnecessarily prescriptive. For instance, it mandates the issuing of a receipt in a specific format in a set timescale. Is that really necessary? The word "nanny" was used, and rightly denied, but at this point, it would be an appropriate accusation. Other fee-paying regimes work out how to deal with these peripheral matters. We have a lot of legislation. This alone is a big Bill, but did it need to contain all this? At the most, it could be a matter for guidance, although I do not think that that should be required either. The Government are seeking to reduce regulatory burdens. This seems to be adding to them.
	I shall be very brief on the detail of the amendments. Amendment 240Z would take out the provision for written acknowledgement of receipt of the fee-I cannot believe that that will not be done because people paying money require receipts-and the time periods to which I referred. Amendments 240XC and 240XD increase the grace period. Again, is this prescription absolutely necessary? The grace period is 21 days in the Bill, but I have suggested eight weeks. It is fairly obvious that I oppose my noble friend's amendment in this group, Amendment 240XH. That follows from what I have just said. I support Amendment 241ZB, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will speak. I am very glad that the Local Government Association spotted what, coming up to Wimbledon, I can perhaps describe as an unforced error in the legislation. I beg to move.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said and support her amendments. The provisions in the Bill are very detailed and our amendments, taken together, are an attempt to try to tidy up some of that and to reflect on the regulatory burden that is being imposed.
	I shall speak to Amendment 241ZB, which has been mentioned. Someone spotted what appears to be a simple error: at present, it does not look as though the costs incurred by some parts of the licensing system can be recovered, particularly in two-tier areas. As is well known, when a licensing application is made, copies of the licence are sent to those parts of the council classified as responsible authorities under the Licensing Act. In unitary authorities, including London boroughs, metropolitan councils and Welsh councils, all those bodies exist within the same council, which is also the licensing authority. Therefore, the costs would be recoverable under Clause 122 as presently drafted. However, in two-tier areas, the licensing authority sits within the district council, whereas social services and trading standards sit at the county level. As a result, in two-tier areas, the costs incurred by social services and trading standards would not be recoverable should the clause remain unchanged. Our amendment is therefore imperative to ensure that all costs are recoverable, regardless of the local government structure in the area, thus fulfilling the commendable approach which has been taken in the Bill to allow full cost recovery through licence fees.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments 240XF, 240XH and 241ZZA, while supporting Amendments 241 and 241Y. These amendments seek to remove the lines of the Bill which give councils the power to charge licensees for more than just cost recovery in the licensing system. Businesses in the sector are concerned about the cost implications of the amendment in the other place on fees. In already difficult economic times, licensees will be facing significantly increased costs, which will be particularly difficult to bear for small businesses.
	The wording of the Bill is extremely vague, stating that businesses will not only be liable for costs associated with local authorities discharging the licensing function but also the general costs of the licensing authority and other associated authorities, such as the planning department. These amendments seek to delete the provision that would allow licensing authorities to reclaim not only the cost of carrying out activities relating to licensing but also any other general costs. This wording would effectively give local authorities power to charge licensees for a whole host of alternative activities even if they are not related to the cost of administering the licensing regime.
	The legislation does not explain what safeguards will be in place for businesses. There has to be a transparent process where local authorities would need to demonstrate why their chosen fee level is appropriate. Businesses would have to have an opportunity to feed into this process and to appeal the decision if the local authority was looking to set fees at a level that was disproportionate. There should also be a national cap on the level at which fees can be set to avoid local authorities applying disproportionate charges.
	While the measure would have a significant impact for all premises, there is the concern that it could disproportionately affect smaller businesses. It could be the case in certain areas of particularly high licensing fees that independent businesses find themselves priced out of the local market and therefore unable to compete with larger chains. That would be to the detriment of the consumer who would find that their choice is limited. With reference to the off-trade, a significant number of licensed premises are grocery retailers, so this decrease in competition locally would impact on far more than just the ability to buy alcohol. Any increase must consider the effect on smaller businesses.
	Amendment 240XH is designed to ascertain the Government's intention on the introduction of a cap of the amount that local authorities can charge. Subsection (3) of the new clause to be inserted in the Licensing Act 2003 under Clause 122(2) provides,
	"the fee is to be determined by the licensing authority to whom it is to be payable".
	Subsection (4) of the new clause allows the regulations to provide a constraint on the amount up to which local authorities can charge but this does not necessarily mean that such a limit must be set. Businesses have a real concern that some councils may charge excessive amounts based on their costs, which will be difficult and expensive to challenge. We know already that the level of enforcement activity varies around the country and such variation is not necessarily driven by need. Not all councils are driven by the Hampton principles of good enforcement and over-zealous enforcement can be expensive and unproductive. The wide range of fees collected by councils under the old public entertainment licence regime was one of the drivers of their being subsumed into the Licensing Act 2003. A repeat of the problems, discrepancies and costs to businesses should not be repeated. A national cap, such as that imposed in the Gambling Act 2005, is a not unreasonable request and should be specifically included in the Bill.
	Amendment 241ZZA builds on previous amendments to ensure that safeguards are in place in the legislation to prevent businesses facing excessive and unfair licensing fees.

Viscount Astor: Amendment 241, to which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones referred, is in my name and concerns fees. Subsection (7) of the new clause to be inserted in the Licensing Act under Clause 122(2) states:
	"In determining the amount of the fee, the licensing authority must seek to secure that the income from fees of that kind will equate, as nearly as possible, to the aggregate".
	Paragraph (a) of subsection (7) states that,
	"the licensing authority's costs referable to the discharge of the function to which the fee relates".
	I do not see any problem with that clause, which seems enormously sensible and would collect most of the costs. However, paragraph (b) of subsection (7) refers to,
	"a reasonable share of the licensing authority's general costs".
	That seems to be a recipe for confusion because there will be endless arguments about, first, what is a reasonable share and, secondly, what are the licensing authority's general costs. I thought that when local government-there are many noble Lords here who are more expert than I am on it-determined fees and collected them, those fees related to the actual things that it was doing. The idea that this can cover general costs, as my noble friend says, would enable a local authority to say that general costs in many other areas-whether for collecting refuse or whatever-could somehow relate to this and then collect the fees. So there is a concern.
	I hope that my noble friend can give me some comfort that this will not allow local authorities, which, as we know, are always short of money, to use this to collect fees, which would mean a greater burden on the industry than there should be. [Interruption.]

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My rising is not normally greeted with that amount of drama and my observations will not in any way warrant that dramatic attention. As a footnote to what my noble friend Lord Astor said, it seems that a local authority in assessing its costs in terms of this process will have both fixed costs and marginal costs. Although I totally understand that he is arguing for marginal costs, there presumably has to be some way in which the fixed costs are recovered as well.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: I do not think that the Minister needs to apologise to the House for the line that she is taking. If I could catch her attention, I would congratulate her on being very bold. Perhaps I will be accused of being a Puritan today. I will come back to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in a moment and try to prove to him that I am not. In Committee, I was invited by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, to raise questions I had raised previously about the Government's philosophical approach to licensing and whether we are effecting a change of direction to what we have had during the past 15 years. I will not repeat them all. They are on the record and I do not suppose that at this time we have enough time to go into a philosophical discourse on it.
	I hope that the Government are about a subtle change over time that will lead, one hopes, to a cultural change over time. It will not be easy, as the Minister rightly acknowledges. A good change that the Government have effected is that they are now prepared to allow local authorities at least to start recovering some of the costs that they have been incurring and have not been able to recover in recent years because of the failure on the part of government to allow them to update their recovery elements. There are some technical points and I support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Stevenson.
	As he might have anticipated, I am opposed to Amendments 240XF, 240XH and 241 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which would move us back to the status quo and not go down the route which the Government are endeavouring to traverse. I can tell the noble Lord that I would be quite happy to support Amendment 241ZZA, which seeks greater openness and transparency in the way in which local authorities are working out and charging their fees. I would hope that, in drawing up a list and in giving guidance to local authorities, we might be prepared to give them the freedom to recover the costs that they might incur in trying to retrain some of their licensing authorities on how they should deal with the thorny issue that the Minister endeavoured to tackle in our previous session on the differences between the words "appropriate" and "necessary".
	I have been in touch with the LGA and, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has said, it is unhappy about this-not for political reasons but primarily for technical reasons. There would be a problem for the panels in dealing with the change in language without being given appropriate training in order to be able to handle it, but it fears it could not meet the costs. So I hope that the Minister will give favourable consideration to adopting Amendment 241ZZA and perhaps add to the list the training costs incurred by local authorities in seeking to implement fully the changes the Government are endeavouring to introduce in the legislation relating to fees.
	I try to be balanced in my approach. Overall, the direction is correct but perhaps some changes need to be made here and there. I am therefore happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his Amendment 241ZZA.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive comments in connection with these clauses and amendments.
	Clauses 121 and 122 address problems in the system of fees under the Licensing Act 2003. Local government has been calling for action on both these points ever since the Act was introduced. Clause 121 introduces the suspension of licences or club premises certificates for failure to pay the annual fee. Currently, an authority must pursue unpaid annual fees through the courts, and there is no other sanction for non-payment. The sanction of suspension will provide a considerable added incentive to licence holders to pay the fee on time. Clause 122 introduces locally set licensing fees. The purpose is to ensure that licensing fees properly recover the cost to licensing authorities of discharging their functions under the Act. Although this clause was introduced on Report in another place, it was not a decision taken in haste. We needed time to ensure that the clause achieved full cost recovery for licensing authorities in a way that is fair to fee payers, licensing authorities and council tax payers.
	There are a number of amendments in this group, and I hope noble Lords will bear with me as I attempt to give each amendment the response it deserves. Amendments 240Z and 240XC would remove the requirement on local licensing authorities to provide a receipt. Amendment 240XA aims to reduce the burden of the requirement by requiring that the receipt must be provided only if it is requested. I recognise that these amendments aim to reduce what may look like excessive bureaucracy. At the outset, it is worth emphasising that the clause requires the provision of a receipt only in a case in which a licence or certificate has been suspended and is then reinstated when the fee is paid. We do not expect this to be a frequent occurrence, as we expect licence payers to be assiduous in avoiding suspension. It is not unreasonable for the licence holder to expect clarity as to whether the licence has been reinstated because carrying out licensable activities without a licence is a serious offence. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is six months' imprisonment, a fine of up to £20,000, or both. Amendment 240XA is a compromise solution whereby licensing authorities will be required to provide a receipt only on request. Having considered it, I believe that this amendment would actually increase the bureaucratic process in terms of the correspondence relating to whether or not a receipt is required, with, I suggest, only marginal benefit.
	Amendments 240XB and 240XD would greatly extend the grace period that applies in cases of dispute or administrative error. The period of 21 days is not set in stone as a matter of principle. However, three weeks seems to us a reasonable length of time in which to resolve a dispute or administrative error. It would allow evidence to be provided that the fee has already been paid or that the supposed due date was not the anniversary of the licence. I cannot yet see a case for extending this period by five more weeks, and I would be concerned that it would considerably weaken the sanction of suspension.
	Amendments 240XE and 240XG remove references in Clause 121 to the Secretary of State's powers to prescribe fees. I understand absolutely that the intention is to emphasise the Bill's contribution to the localism agenda. However, the references which the amendments seek to remove are cross-references to the existing powers to set fees centrally. They are a necessary part of the mechanism by which Clause 122 introduces a power for the Secretary of State to provide that fees are set locally. So the result of the amendments would actually be that the clause no longer provides for locally set fees.
	Amendments 240XF and 241 would remove the reference to the licensing authority's general costs from the description of what fees must cover. I emphasise that there is no intention that locally set licensing fees will fund the general costs of local government in the everyday sense of the phrase, which means that they could raise money from fee payers for something unrelated, such as to help build a new swimming pool or, as my noble friend Lord Astor suggested, to collect refuse. That would mean that licensing fees had become a form of discretionary local taxation. This is certainly not permitted by Clause 122 through the insertion of Section 197B of the Licensing Act, specifically subsection (3), which defines general costs and limits them to costs referable to the discharge of functions under the 2003 Act.
	Amendment 241ZA also seeks to reduce the costs that can be recovered by licensing authorities through locally set fees. In this case, it seeks to remove the costs incurred by the licensing authority under the Act, but in a capacity other than that of a licensing authority. The costs referred to are those of the responsible authorities that are part of the licensing authority. These costs were intended to be taken into account by the current centrally set fees. Not to permit these costs to be covered by locally set fees would be to impose a new burden on local government and would therefore be contrary to established government practice and the intention of the clause. Our intention in introducing locally set licensing fees is that they should cover the cost to licensing authorities of discharging their functions under the 2003 Act. The current fees, set centrally, were also intended to cover the general costs as they are defined in this clause, and the defined costs of a licensing authority acting as a responsible authority. To remove these costs would mean that fees did not achieve what they are supposed to do.
	Amendments 240XH and 241ZZA seek to ensure that the power to set fees locally is constrained and subject to guidance. I can assure your Lordships that we do indeed intend to make locally set fees subject to constraints. Specifically, we intend to make each fee subject to a nationally set cap, and we will consult on the level of that cap. However, to impose a requirement for the imposition of unspecified constraints would be both excessive and, I suggest, ineffective. A future Secretary of State may, for example, have a legitimate reason to utilise the power to make different provision in respect of different authorities, or not to impose additional constraints on a particular authority. However, it must be remembered that such an authority would still be subject to the limitation that income from fees equates as nearly as possible to costs.
	Amendment 241ZZA introduces a duty on the Secretary of State, when providing for locally set fees, to issue detailed guidance. Again, I can assure your Lordships that it is our intention, after consultation, to issue guidance covering all these points. However, I suggest that it is excessive to require all these specifically in the clause. Section 182 of the 2003 Act already requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to licensing authorities on the discharge of their functions under the Act. It also enables her to make such revisions to the guidance as she considers appropriate. The addition of a new duty, that of setting fees, would therefore justify such a revision, and it is our intention to do so.
	Amendment 241ZB seeks to ensure that the costs of social services and trading standards, in their roles as responsible authorities, can be taken into account within locally set fees even when they are located in an upper tier authority. Currently, the clause has the effect that these costs are recoverable only in a single tier authority, such as a unitary authority. I thank noble Lords for drawing attention to this. I know that many noble Lords will be concerned about the addition of any further costs that will be recovered by fees.
	It should be noted that the amendment specifies that the costs that should be recovered are those of these two public bodies, but only in their roles as responsible authorities: for example, in considering applications and, in rare cases, applying for a review. This is expected to be a very marginal cost in the context of overall fee income. It does not incorporate the wider costs of these public bodies in dealing with licensed premises. We intend that locally set fees should cover costs that are not covered by the current centrally set fee levels. For example, the costs of the environmental health authority in respect of its wider statutory duties connected to licensed premises are not covered; only the marginal costs that arise from the 2003 Act are. Having said all that, I see sense in the intention of Amendment 241ZB and, if I may, I shall reflect on it further.
	Amendment 241Y seeks to remove the provision in the Bill for regulations to be made providing that club premises certificate holders can make a free minor variation before a late-night levy is introduced in their area. It is consequential on a number of amendments that have the combined effect of removing members' clubs from the application of the late-night levy. I hope that we will be able to discuss it later, alongside those amendments. For the reasons that I have given, I therefore ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments today.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, briefly, before my noble friend replies on her amendment, I welcome the Minister's useful clarification of the definition of general costs. I shall certainly reflect on that before the next stage. The technical references were extremely helpful. The Minister was also very helpful in talking about the guidance on how fees are calculated and will be dealt with by local authorities.
	I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for my amendment. It was like the first swallow of summer or something of that sort. On my Amendment 241ZZA, the Minister said that guidance will be published, which is helpful. However, as far as one can see there is no appeal mechanism in the proposed new section that is already incorporated in the Bill. Is it possible for guidance to deal with how that sort of thing should be dealt with as well?

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the Government will reflect on Amendment 241ZB. I am grateful to my noble friend for responding to a couple of amendments that I failed to explain. I have been a little distracted by a domestic crisis. One should not use a BlackBerry too much in the Chamber, but it has been jolly useful this morning.
	If the receipt is intended as an acknowledgement that the suspension has ended, it seems rather a confusing mechanism. Simply providing that the authority must acknowledge that the suspension has ended would be a great deal clearer.
	I shall say just a word about the general costs. There is a reference to a cap. I am puzzled by how a cap can be consistent when the fees must reflect actual costs. Perhaps we can pursue that outside the Chamber.
	I shall also put one thought into the Government's mind. The references to general costs seem very wide. I am not surprised that they have attracted amendments. They are justifiable if they are a proper proportion of overheads. I wonder whether some wording such as "directly or indirectly related to the particular application" might be more reassuring and appropriate. Although some of us are approaching this from different points of view, we might be able to share some thoughts before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 240Z.
	Amendment 240Z withdrawn.
	Amendments 240XA to 240XD not moved.
	Clause 121 agreed.
	Clause 122 : Power for licensing authorities to set fees
	Amendments 240XE to 241ZB not moved.
	Clause 122 agreed.
	House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 2.46 pm.

EUC Report: Economic Governance

Copy of the Report Vol 1
	Copy of the Report Vol 2

Question for Short Debate

Lord Harrison: To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report of the European Union Committee on The Future of Economic Governance in the EU (12th Report, HL Paper 124).

Lord Harrison: The crisis in the euro area has rarely been out of the news over the past year. Therefore, my committee decided to launch an inquiry into EU economic governance, especially after EU member states banded together to provide financial assistance to Greece in early 2009. Since then the crisis has continued to spread. Indeed, while we were taking evidence Ireland received financial support. Since the report was published, yet another euro area country-Portugal-has asked for and received a loan package. In the wake of these difficulties, the European Union has pushed ahead with proposals to reform its economic governance. The proposals are likely to be agreed at ECOFIN next week, so I thank the Government for providing an opportunity for this timely debate.
	The euro area crisis followed the worldwide banking crisis in 2008. The interconnection between sovereign debt and the banking sectors was one of principal elements that contributed to the current crisis. However, it was not the cause of the current problems in the euro area; it was merely the trigger. Our report details two more fundamental reasons for the euro area crisis. First, there is an endemic flaw in the architecture of the monetary union: while monetary policy is centralised, fiscal policy remains fragmented among member states and is inadequately co-ordinated. Secondly, the past decade has seen a build-up of macroeconomic competitiveness imbalances among euro area member states. Within monetary union, states can no longer devalue their currencies to regain temporary competitiveness or adjust their interest rates to take account of variations between different economies.
	These problems have been exacerbated by a failure of the markets, and member states themselves, to understand how the monetary union worked. The markets treated the euro area as a single entity, and did not distinguish carefully or sufficiently between the financial health of individual member states. This has meant that for most of the past decade the interest rate on Greece's sovereign debt has not been much higher than the interest rate on German sovereign debt. It should have been.
	Our report focused on a series of six proposals published by the European Commission in autumn 2009, which were designed to address these problems. The proposals would monitor and co-ordinate more closely economic policies among the member states. In parallel with the Commission, the European Council established a task force to consider these issues under the chairmanship of the President of the Council, Herman Van Rompuy. With only minor differences, the task force's recommendations echoed the proposals put forward by the Commission.
	The proposals focus on two distinct aspects of member states' economies. First, they aim to improve fiscal discipline among member states. The Commission has proposed amending the stability and growth pact to broaden its surveillance of member states' fiscal policies and, to ensure better compliance, it has suggested strengthening the sanctions regime. In addition, a proposed new directive would incorporate EU-level fiscal rules into domestic fiscal frameworks.
	Secondly, the proposals would create new mechanisms to monitor and correct macroeconomic imbalances, such as divergences in current account positions, in competitiveness or in credit and house-price bubbles. In addition to these six proposals, we considered the Council's proposals for a permanent crisis resolution mechanism for euro area member states. The European Council agreed to establish such a mechanism in March this year, although the details of the mechanism are still to be confirmed.
	Before I turn to the committee's view of the Commission's proposals, I should briefly say why the UK should be engaged. After all, we are not a member of the euro area and many of the proposals related to sanctions or fiscal rules will not be binding on the United Kingdom as a result of its opt-out from the monetary union. Our witnesses, however, were unanimous in stating that the health of the euro area directly impacts on the United Kingdom. In 2009, some 60 per cent of the United Kingdom's trade was with the European Union, the UK financial sector has substantial investment in euro area countries and the Government recognised the UK's substantial interest in Ireland by providing a bilateral loan above and beyond their contribution through the European financial stabilisation mechanism and the IMF.
	The Commission's proposals may not all apply to the United Kingdom, but we have a vested interest-a vital interest-in ensuring that they are appropriate and will successfully contribute to the future economic and financial stability of the European Union. In addition to these hard, economic reasons, we believe that the United Kingdom should play an active role for another reason: solidarity. The EU is founded on solidarity and we believe that the United Kingdom should consider and support where possible the interests of other member states. I say to the Minister that it is surprising how often solidarity turns out to be far-sighted self-interest.
	I now turn to the Commission's proposals. Taken as a whole, the committee concluded that they are a step in the right direction although they do not go so far as to enact the full fiscal union that some of our witnesses thought was necessary for the future stability of the euro area. Closer economic co-operation is necessary to foster greater economic stability in the European Union, particularly for those countries that have bound themselves together into a single monetary union. The proposals relating to fiscal discipline and co-operation should make it easier for euro area members to arrive at a collective fiscal stance that stands as an equal to a centralised monetary policy. Likewise, the proposals for a new system of macroeconomic surveillance and co-ordination will help to detect and address at an earlier stage excessive imbalances that threaten to destabilise the monetary union.
	We also support the establishment of a permanent crisis resolution mechanism. In particular, we concluded that the inclusion of collective action clauses, setting out a formal mechanism for restructuring debt is essential. We felt that these should clearly establish the principle that the private sector should share the burden of any restructuring of sovereign debt. It is only right that, as they share in the rewards, they should share in the risk. The Government's response indicates that private sector involvement will be on a case-by-case basis. I would be interested to hear the Minister say under what circumstances the private sector might be exempted from the restructuring, and a reassurance that this would be the exception not the rule.
	While the Government have made it clear that the United Kingdom will not take part in the new permanent crisis mechanism, we believe that there may be times when, as with Ireland, it is clearly in the UK's interest to participate in financial assistance to member states in difficulties. We welcome, therefore, that the current proposal will allow member states outside the euro area to contribute to rescue packages on an ad hoc basis if they wish to do so.
	Our primary concern with these proposals is the likelihood that they will continue to be adhered to rigorously as time goes on. Previous efforts to enforce fiscal discipline among euro area member states have been regrettably ineffective. Under the proposals, the Council will retain responsibility for enforcing responsible fiscal behaviour through sanctions. We concluded that this was indeed appropriate given the sovereign nature of EU member states. Only time will tell, however, whether the collective will of member states is strong enough to ensure that the sanctions procedure is applied when required and when the crisis is over.
	In his evidence, Mark Hoban MP stated that:
	"The cost of the crisis in the eurozone is a reminder to us that we must make these processes work much more effectively".
	The current crisis must indeed be remembered as a reason why member states should enforce the rules set out in these proposals in good times as well as bad. The ultimate responsibility for this lies with the political authorities of the EU, and the committee, I am sorry to say, remained sceptical that they will have the collective political will to enforce them effectively.
	I thank all my fellow members of the committee and Professor Iain Begg-our specialist adviser-Antony Willot and Laura Bonacorsi-Macleod for their sterling work in helping the committee steer its way through a difficult report. I hope that the Minister will come back to this in time because we need constant updates on a very tricky situation that is of huge relevance to the United Kingdom.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we have a rather tight timetable. I remind noble Lords that when the clock says four they are into the fifth minute and should sit down.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, the whole question of the economic governance of the EU is, in anybody's business, a very big topic, and our committee had to restrict itself somewhat. But it was a slight pity that we failed completely to address the whole question of the competitiveness of the EU, which is a subject that perhaps we should turn to at some stage. When you talk to people in Europe and in Brussels they rather like to feel that there is no global market out there at all and that the massive competitive forces building up in China and India can be ignored. The EU is incredibly introverted in the way that it looks at things. As it is, our report did look at the proposals produced by the Commission.
	The Commission produced the stability and growth pact originally, and we are now armed with proposals for the stability and growth pact part 2. Of course, part 1 was a total, abject failure. The conditions were broken by the French and the Germans very early in its life. Have we really any confidence in this one? I suspect, although I cannot speak for all my fellow members of the committee, that we felt the chances of this second go from the Commission producing new stability and growth pact proposals was unlikely to be any more successful than the last lot.
	We need to think slightly outside the box. I echo the words of the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, that we should be very concerned about what happens in the eurozone. It would be nice if we could stand back and watch the whole thing implode, but if it did, such is the exposure of British banks and of the whole financial sector in Europe that the effect would be devastating. We would move into a serious banking crisis. We have to look to the success of the eurozone. We cannot stand back and watch Greece collapse either. That would have the effect of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, where the collateral damage was very serious indeed. It would have the effect of spreading all across the eurozone. Contagion is a big problem.
	The eurozone has to address where it goes from here. I do not believe that there is any will among the nation states to see the eurozone collapse. But if they are not to see it collapse they must move forward into a much more federal structure. We have to see a much bigger role played by the European Central Bank and the eurozone reconciling itself to the fact that there will have to be fiscal transfers to some of these nations. A great date has been dreamt up of 2013. When that was originally dreamt up it seemed quite a long way away but it is getting nearer and nearer. Sovereign debt is guaranteed up until 2013 but one has to start asking now what will happen after 2013. Will places such as Greece and Portugal suddenly become competitive when they are not competitive today? The answer is no and there has to be a completely new construction of how the eurozone is managed. I am afraid that that all points to it becoming a much more federal organisation. Whether that means that the eurozone will succeed, I do not know. If it becomes federal, it will certainly survive for much longer than it otherwise would.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, as has already been said by the two previous speakers, in or out of the eurozone, effective economic governance in the European Union is important to all member states and particularly to us here in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, has clearly set out the remit and context of the report from Sub-Committee A of the EU Select Committee, of which I am a member. In the short time that I have, I will concentrate on the role of sanctions in future economic governance of the EU.
	As has been said, the Commission's proposals on sanctions will not apply to the UK by virtue of its opt-out from membership of the euro. As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, set out and as I indicated in my opening remarks, the UK has a vital interest in ensuring that these proposals succeed. Our sub-committee report recognised that the markets will play a key role in promoting sensible fiscal behaviour by member states by charging higher interest rates to those countries deemed to have lax fiscal policies. However, the markets have not always proven effective at this in the past. There is a need for a further mechanism to ensure compliance. This is where sanctions fit in. The Government have recognised this-and recognised it in our report.
	The sub-committee concluded that the Commission's proposals for a more graduated sanctions regime would help dissuade irresponsible fiscal behaviour. Sanctions will be easier to apply and more of a credible threat if they start off small and are available earlier in the process. Again, the Government have agreed with the committee's assessment of this. As has already been said, one of the greatest failings of the current system of sanctions has been that member states have found it too easy to avoid sanctions when they have broken the rules. France and Germany breached the stability and growth pact in 2002-03 and this led to a conflict between the Commission, which wanted to impose sanctions, and the Council, which refused. In the end, France and Germany managed to persuade the European Council to relax the rules governing the stability and growth pact.
	Several sub-committee witnesses argued that sanctions should be made fully automatic. This was the line taken by the European Parliament, which feels that automatic sanctions would prevent member states from negotiating their way out of sanctions. However, the sub-committee concluded that fully automatic sanctions were a step too far and would remove any room for judgment. We supported the Commission's proposals for reverse-majority voting, which would require a majority to vote against sanctions to block them, as opposed to the current system where the majority have to vote in favour. While the sub-committee believes that this discretion is necessary given that the EU is a political union of sovereign member states, it is vital that the Council shows that it is willing to take tough decisions and levy sanctions when the stability and growth pact is breached. The Government agree in their response that the efficacy of the sanctions regime will depend on the degree of political will in the Council. Will the Council be willing to take tough decisions on sanctions when the crisis is over?
	We considered various other suggestions on sanctions. At the insistence of Germany, the Van Rompuy task force report did not rule out the possibility of removing voting rights in Council from those countries breaking the stability and growth pact. The sub-committee did not believe that this would be an appropriate sanction and would raise significant questions about legitimacy and sovereignty. Can the Minister confirm that the UK will block this proposal from being taken forward if Germany proposes it once again? The Government also stated in their response that there are a,
	"large range of other potential sanctions that could be more easily and swiftly implemented by the Council",
	rather than removing voting rights. Could the Minister indicate what those might be?
	As I stated at the beginning, only member states within the euro area can have sanctions imposed upon them. However, the Van Rompuy task force report suggested that enforcement mechanisms should be extended to all member states, excluding the UK, in the multi-annual financial framework. The committee thought that this was quite inappropriate. The Government's stated intention is that they would oppose these suggestions. Can the Minister confirm that they will stop any attempt to extend sanctions beyond the euro area by any such means?

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this is an important report and I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on the way in which he has both shepherded his sub-committee into preparing it and set the scene in opening the debate today. Although he covered the ground thoroughly, I will emphasise two points.
	First, standing outside the euro area, as the United Kingdom does, gave the sub-committee an interesting opportunity to view the issues raised in the Commission's proposals in a rather objective way, while realising and acknowledging that we are not an island alone unto ourselves. That the UK's financial investment sector had and has substantial investments in the euro area means that we are directly affected by whatever goes on there-that is apart from the fact that some 60 per cent of UK trade is within the European Union. The state of the economies of those trading partners has a direct impact. We need to be fully aware of and involved in all European Union policy developments in the area. In all fairness, this and the United Kingdom's undoubted expertise in the financial sector has been acknowledged and welcomed. Not one witness who gave evidence to us suggested that we were in any way interfering in eurozone business.
	Secondly, the report refers to the deepening problems and evolving policy responses. In the few short months since its publication, it is quite clear that things have moved on. The contagion theory has been proved. Ireland and Portugal have joined Greece in asking for help. We are looking at a moving target at the same time as trying to find ways to prevent any of this happening again in the future. Those who believe in the inevitability of the business cycle may well be proved right. This is unlikely to be the last report on the subject.
	The main question I wish to ask the Minister relates to institutional reform. The sub-committee's recommendation and the Government's response indicate that, whatever happens in terms of strengthening and reinforcing institutions, we do not want any new institutions. I understand that there are some quite tricky negotiations going on between the Council and the European Parliament before next week's 20 June meeting. This results from the European Parliament's wish for a greater role in fiscal and macroeconomic surveillance, the right to call Governments to account and their support for the use of reverse-majority voting. Can the Minister confirm what, if any, objections the Government have to the European Parliament's proposals? Is he concerned that the United Kingdom Government could be more sidelined as a result?
	As has been said, in general our report broadly supports the six main proposals before us from the European Union. There can be no doubt that things will continue to change, that there will be more use of financial regulation in a more proactive way in future, or that there needs to be more co-ordination between monetary and financial policy. Although our report was published in March, today has turned out to be appropriate for our debate. Not only do we just precede the ECOFIN meeting next week but also we follow the Chancellor's Mansion House speech last night. Today also sees the first meetings of the Bank of England's new committee charged with spotting signs of danger in advance-just the sort of thing that we are talking about. I trust that the evidence collected for our report as well as the conclusions that we have drawn will make a useful contribution to their tasks.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I, too, join colleagues on the committee in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, the staff of the committee and our special adviser for ensuring that an excellent report was produced on these important issues. I recognise the importance of the euro and the eurozone to the United Kingdom. I also recognise the various measures being put in place for strengthening Governments, dealing with short and long-term crises and establishing a new financial regulatory infrastructure are all extremely important institutional developments.
	The markets appear to have considerable confidence in the future of the euro. I shall return to that in a moment. But-and there is a but in my mind-there is the position of Greece, certainly, and Ireland. I regard the sovereign debt situation in those countries as ultimately unsustainable. Our report draws attention to the distinction between solvency and liquidity, and there is a fundamental insolvency problem in Greece and probably in Ireland, too. Ultimately, that will have to be dealt with. Having a new institutional strength and institutional structures, and being determined politically to ensure that they work more effectively in future, will be constantly undermined if the markets simply do not believe that one or two countries are going to default. There is a real risk that that continued uncertainty will undermine long-term reform.
	Sooner or later, that problem will have to be dealt with. I well understand, politically, why 2013, or a period two or three years hence, has been set, although I, like the markets, doubt whether the certainty of no default can bear fruit. There is an understandable reluctance for Greece to be seen to be getting away with what is seen as profligacy-of course I understand that. Any way in which that is dealt with, ultimately, will have to be seen in the context of major reforms and fiscal probity in Greece. Ireland is in a very different situation, indeed; there were entirely different causes. But ultimately, those countries in one form or another will have to have some of their debt written down, however that takes place.
	I pose one or two questions to the Minister. The European Commission is reported to have examined the consequences of various ways in which Greek debt at least might be adjusted-although I have not had the opportunity to read it myself. Were Her Majesty's Government party to any consultation on the production of that document, and have they formed, or are they in the process of forming, any assessment of the possible consequences of the possible adjustments in debt of Greece and Ireland? It would be very helpful to the committee to know that.
	I end where I started. The markets appear not to believe that the almost certain default by Greece will undermine the euro. They do not believe the mantra that if Greece defaults, the euro is under serious threat. That is not what they say. They have been wrong before and they may be wrong on this occasion. However, if they are right, ultimately Greece may be able to default in part, in a controlled way, and even Ireland may be able to do so-and I believe that the Irish and Greek politicians will be greatly relieved.

Lord Haskins: My Lords, when I was reading the Van Rompuy report last night, on the very day when Greece appeared to be on the verge of spiralling out of control, I had a feeling that we had all been sleepwalking through a surreal nightmare in the past few years and were continuing to do so.
	I have always liked the expression, "Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted". It seems as if this is what we are trying to do. But a number of horses have escaped from this eurozone stable and have yet to be recaptured. There is no point in making the stable secure if there are no horses inside. That is why resolving the immediate crises in Greece and Ireland, particularly, is so critical. Better economic governance is an academic exercise until that has been achieved. However, assuming-and this is a big assumption-that by 2013 the horses are all back in their stables, there is the question of whether the proposals from the Van Rompuy taskforce are sufficient to make the doors more secure or whether we might have to consider knocking the eurozone stable down altogether and rebuilding it into something called "fiscal union".
	There is one very good reason why the present proposals may work. That is, to coin another equestrian metaphor, "Once bitten, twice shy". I do not believe that in the short term the various guilty parties will repeat the errors that they made which created the crisis in the first place-though having experienced three other banking crises in my business career, I am quite sure that over time the banks will behave badly once again.
	The idea of a European semester is a good one, in which all member states would present, discuss and co-ordinate their fiscal policies on a regular basis. Early signs of misbehaviour within national economies will be identified and, consequently, the markets will react before it is too late. But I have reservations about the proposals to strengthen sanctions against the stability and growth pact. I am sure that when some unfortunate Commission official turns up at the Élysée Palace to collect the fine for some French misdemeanour, he or she will get a pretty dusty answer. The most effective sanctions should, of course, come from the markets, which failed lamentably to do so in the run-up to the present crisis. Incidentally, I was very surprised to hear President Obama in Westminster Hall the other day speak about the crisis in the past tense. If the semester process is not opaque, the markets will be much better equipped to respond appropriately. There will be no more dodgy Greek statistics, no more skulduggery in the Anglo Irish bank, no more raising Greek debt as being of the same quality as German debt, and no more sleight of hand between Goldman Sachs-as well as a greater understanding of the link between private, corporate and sovereign debt.
	The Commission rightly wants to see more pressure on countries that run large deficits to reduce them, but I remain sceptical as to whether it will be able to bring much pressure on countries that run large surpluses, although I agree that excessive surpluses are not desirable.
	I have two other worries about how events may be moving. First, let me quote from Monday's Financial Times and a piece by Larry Summers, who was until recently President Obama's European guru. He said that the financial crisis was,
	"caused by too much confidence, borrowing and lending, and spending",
	but that ironically and paradoxically, it will be,
	"resolved only by increases in confidence, borrowing and lending, and spending".
	Therefore, this may not be the time to raise their levels of equity too quickly. It is better to wait for the upswing-if, and when, it comes.

Lord Marlesford: The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, had a very steady hand as the crisis migrated through Sub-Committee A, and we are grateful to him for that. Both the euro and the euro area are in crisis; they are both in a critical condition and need intensive care. The euro is, in my view, wildly overvalued and several of the member states are, as we know, on the brink of default. The European Central Bank is so loaded up with toxic debt that it is in danger. The Irish Finance Minister, Noonan, recently asked the IMF to get a haircut for the Anglo-Irish debt; that would not be very wise or safe for the ECB.
	What I find astonishing is the undertaking given at Seoul at the G20 by several Finance Ministers, including my right honourable friend George Osborne, that there would be a guarantee of European sovereign debt up to 2013. We asked a number of our witnesses about it, and no one was able to spell that out. I really think that the Minister has a wonderful opportunity to enlighten us in that regard. Given that Her Majesty's Government are a part of it, we should know exactly what the commitment means and how it would work. Nobody appears to know.
	The Government are absolutely right to say that the UK will not sign up to the EU permanent crisis mechanism. I congratulate the Government on setting up the Financial Policy Committee, with its twin remits: first, to reduce systemic risks and, secondly, to enhance the resilience of the UK financial system. Systemic risks, of course, cover both the fault lines in the financial system infrastructure and the cyclical threats from unsustainable levels of leverage, debt or credit growth. That is our solution and we are in that playing an important part in dealing with further threats to this country.
	As so often, the EU's reach is greater than its grasp and Mr Trichet's proposal for a European ministry of finance is such an example. He said that,
	"a ministry of finance ... would exert direct responsibilities in at least three domains: first, the surveillance of both fiscal policies and competitiveness policies, as well as the direct responsibilities mentioned earlier as regards countries in a 'second stage' inside the euro area; second, all the typical responsibilities of the executive branches as regards the union's integrated financial sector, so as to accompany the full integration of financial services; and third, the representation of the union"-
	the EU-
	"confederation in international financial institutions".
	Personally, I do not think that really is a runner-certainly not as far as the UK is concerned. However, Mr Trichet is perfectly logical and having identified the fundamental flaw in the concept of the euro, he is sensibly putting forward what could help.
	Personally, I believe what should happen is that individual euro countries should be enabled to leave the euro area without having to leave the EU but should be able to continue to use the euro, if they wish. It would probably be sensible for them to do so. Nobody is going to be prepared to buy recreated Mickey Mouse currencies. Finally, if China and the US, particularly China, are to be the world's economic locomotives we have to try to see that northern Europe, at least, can prosper and sustain those unfortunate countries in the south, which are going to suffer greatly from the inevitable deflation.

Lord Liddle: My Lords, first, on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harrison and his committee on an excellent report. It shows that this House can bring an intelligence and clarity to complex issues that are unusual in the political world, and I sincerely congratulate them on that. Secondly, when my noble friends Lord Woolmer and Lord Haskins make the point that the recommendations of the Van Rompuy taskforce do not address the fundamental crisis that the euro faces, they are of course right. In my view, it is a crisis of solvency not liquidity that at some stage has to be addressed.
	This economic governance package is not about the immediate resolution of the present crisis but about trying to make sure that we prevent future crises happening. From our perspective, the proposals here are an advance on the stability and growth pact. The stressing of the need to monitor the debt to GDP ratio, not the deficit, is good. The new emphasis on economic imbalances is good, as it is on credit conditions, the risk of asset bubbles and the new streamlined processes for monitoring member state budgets. Where we have ended up on the sanctions regime, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is right as well.
	However, we have some reservations about this and some questions to ask the Government. First, on debt, Mr Hoban's letter says that the Government were concerned that on debt to GDP, the proposals might involve too much of a target-based, semiautomatic approach. However, they say that the proposals have been modified to make sure that that is not so. Could we have more of an explanation of how they have been modified? On this side of the House, we believe strongly that one should not take short-term actions on deficits which make the long-term position on debt worse, not better. It may be that that is what the present Government are doing in terms of their "too far, too fast" economic adjustment in this country but we would like to know more about avoiding that target-based semiautomatic approach.
	Secondly, on the long-term challenges of debt to GDP, is there not a need for an emphasis on positive policies, social investment policies, to overcome issues such as the rising costs of ageing, so that we activate more people in the workforce and invest more in research, education and infrastructure to raise productivity? Is that not a positive absence from these proposals? Thirdly, are there not other measures that the EU could be taking to promote growth in the sovereign debtor countries-for example, bringing forward unused structural fund money or trying to develop, through the European Investment Bank, a cross-border infrastructure investment-which might help to revive the economies in countries such as Greece and Spain? What view do the Government have of that?
	Finally, although I must sit down in a moment, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, made a very thoughtful speech on the role of the UK. I have disagreed with him on the EU Bill but his speech today was extremely thoughtful, as was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, about the impact on the UK. The Government have looked rather Janus-faced to me on these issues. They say at the start of their letter that economic shocks do not respect geographic borders and that it is very much in our economic and political interests to engage, but then they express reservations about engaging. What were the reasons for the Government deciding, for instance, not to join the euro-plus pact, where they might have been able to exert a positive influence on eurozone policies? What would be their attitude to future treaty changes that might lead to further steps towards fiscal union?

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask a very short question? Being very much impressed by the speech that has been made, what is the position of the Opposition? I am not quite sure what the policy of the Government is, but with vast extraterritorial commitments now, should there be a moratorium until we can retrieve our debt without borrowing more money to pay the interest? I do not say that they should be excluded for ever. I am not expert on these things but I would like to know what the noble Lord has to say.

Lord Liddle: Given that that is not a short question, while I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I cannot conceivably deal with a question of such complexity without breaking the rules of the House.

Lord Sassoon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and all the members of the sub-committee for their work on this issue and their excellent and timely report. I learn new things about the way in which this House operates on almost every occasion when I stand at the Dispatch Box. After seeing how the topics had been parcelled out and questions were fired at me from left, right and behind, I now understand what effective committee work is all about. In the brief time that I have, I will not be able to give detailed answers to all the questions. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in which the usual degree of repetition was absent; we have covered a very wide range.
	The euro area has had and continues to have a very tough time. The weak economic growth of the euro area is a symptom of the fundamental problem that is faced: weak economic governance. That is the starting point that the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, and other speakers have drawn attention to. In answer to the noble Lord's question about the current situation-there were also other references to restructuring packages-the Government's position on possible further bailouts for Greece is unchanged, and, incidentally, is the same as that of the French Finance Minister, Madame Lagarde: we do not want to be part of any second European assistance package for Greece. Indeed, no such proposal has been made. In answer to the broader question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, it would be wrong to rule in or out the participation of the private sector in any package for Greece or anywhere else. This important issue continues to be debated, though, and it should be.
	I was interested in and pleased by my noble friend Lord Marlesford's discussion in this area, reminding us of what we are doing in this country, particularly with the proposals that the Government are bringing forward today to ensure that we have mechanisms in place to identify systemic risks and deal with them effectively. I thought for a moment that I had fallen asleep, it was 4.30 pm and we were already talking about the financial regulatory structure in the UK, which we will be doing later today. Following last year's EU economic task force and in the context of the ongoing difficult situation, the Commission brought forward six draft pieces of legislation on fiscal and macroeconomic surveillance that aimed to strengthen current monitoring mechanisms and to give early warnings of economic problems in member states. It proposes tough sanctions for euro area countries that step out of line. I will come back to sanctions in a minute.
	I stress that we are not part of the single currency but, as the committee's report notes, a stable eurozone is firmly in the UK's interests, as is ensuring the success of measures to bring it to economic stability. I trust that there is no doubt about that. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, thinks there is anything Janus-faced about it; we are working hard and co-operatively to ensure that the measures are appropriate.
	Many commentators agree with the committee that the euro area's problems were caused by tensions between centralised monetary policy and decentralised spending decisions. The proposed legislation seeks to address that through increased co-ordination. In broad terms, the Government welcome the pragmatism of the proposals. We support the refinements to the stability and growth pact that will help to prevent countries from running unsustainable deficits in good times. As the committee report notes, a gradually escalating system of sanctions will mean that member states think twice before breaching the pact.
	The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, rightly noted that the most effective sanctions will and must come from the market. A number of questions were nevertheless properly raised about sanctions. We agree that a limited use of reverse qualified majority voting should ensure that member states cannot avoid sanctions through political deal-making at ECOFIN of a sort that was seen from member states in the past. On the questions asked by my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lady Maddock, we think that reverse QMV is one way to address the sanctions question. There should be limits to the use of reverse QMV. We do not think that it would be right to remove voting rights more generally. That would require a treaty change, and the UK would have the right to veto any such proposals.
	I reassure the House, specifically my noble friend Lady Maddock, that the UK is not subject to sanctions under the stability and growth pact. The treaty is clear that they apply only to euro area countries. In addition, the UK's opt-out protocol that was negotiated at Maastricht is clear that we are exempt from such fines.
	Another issue that my noble friend raised was the extension of sanctions in the next financial perspective. I assure her that the Van Rompuy task force report clearly stated this with regard to sanctions under the stability and growth pact and under the next financial perspective. Sanctions may be rolled out for other euro area member states but not applied to the UK, so I hope that the position is clear.
	I should perhaps clarify a point regarding the fiscal proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked about this. The Government did not disagree with the principle of a benchmark for assessing the pace of public debt reduction. Getting debt on to a downward path is of course essential for the eurozone members just as it is for the UK. However, we had concerns that the original Commission proposal was too rigid and might not take sufficient account of debt dynamics that are beyond a member state's control. I am pleased to report that we have sought amendments in council to clarify that the benchmark really will be a benchmark rather than a concrete rule.
	The Government agree with the committee's view that while fiscal discipline is important, it will not be enough to prevent or manage future crises. That will require the EU to have the right macroeconomic warning mechanisms to identify them and the right tools to manage them. Economic imbalances are already monitored under the broad economic policy guidelines and the Europe 2020 initiative, but that has lost momentum in recent years. The Commission proposes a more systematic way of identifying economic imbalances through a scoreboard of economic indicators. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that transparent analysis of member states is important, and these indicators will help to achieve that.
	I understand the note of caution that the committee has sounded in its report. Yes, the success of this monitoring will depend heavily on the degree of political will in council, but ECOFIN will now be forced to consider the evidence from the indicators on the scorecard. The Government agree with the committee's recommendation that the composition of the scoreboard should be subject to regular review, and we are negotiating to achieve that. The Government also agree with the committee that all these systems must be intelligently interlinked. We want to see Finance Ministers having realistic discussions of policy problems, drawing on evidence from Europe 2020, the stability and growth pact and European Systemic Risk Board recommendations, if necessary. We want clear, frank recommendations for member states, and help and support for them when they act to improve their economic position and boost growth.
	Finally, the proposals for a euro area crisis resolution mechanism, or European financial stability mechanism-the ESM-as it is known, are being debated in parallel to these legislative discussions. The need for them was stressed by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom and the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds. The Government very much support the ESM, which will provide euro-area countries with the financial equivalent of a parachute. We agree with the committee's view that conditionality is vital and that there must be no question of this being free money for fiscally irresponsible member states. Like the committee, we welcome the explicit recognition that the IMF will play a technical and advisory role in all future uses of the ESM.
	The Hungarian presidency wants to finalise this package of legislation by the time that presidency ends on 30 June. My noble friend Lady Hooper pressed me on the details of this. I regret to say that the ECOFIN discussion on this was at an informal dinner earlier this week that was not minuted. There are some difficult issues, of which my noble friend is clearly aware, which need to be resolved. The Hungarian presidency is working on them, and the European Parliament intends to schedule a vote on the package next week.
	I emphasise again the importance to the UK economy of achieving lasting economic stability within and beyond the eurozone. This is the central aim of this legislative package. Throughout the negotiations, the Government have striven to achieve genuine strengthening of economic governance while preserving this Parliament's sovereignty over all aspects of economic and financial policy. I am satisfied that we are on track to achieve those objectives and that the report of your Lordships' European Union Committee has made a most useful contribution to that process.
	Sitting suspended.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
	 — 
	Committee (6th Day) (Continued)

Clause 123: Licensing policy statements
	Amendment 241ZC
	 Moved by Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
	241ZC: Clause 123, page 86, line 39, at end insert-
	"( ) In section 9(1) after "of" insert "not less than"."

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, during the passage of the Licensing Act 2003, in a gesture that was helpful to local authorities as licensing authorities, the Government introduced in Section 9(1) a provision that:
	"A licensing committee may establish one or more sub-committees consisting of three members of the committee",
	who would then serve as the licensing panel on an application. I do not know if the Government then foresaw the use that local and licensing authorities might make of this provision. A present consequence of Section 9(1) is that, on a particular interpretation, licensing panels can in practice be reduced from three to two. That has the effect of making the chairman, who has a casting vote, decisive, and thus has the effect of single-person decisions. This is habitual in one London borough licensing authority, which I am led to believe is Camden; and I declare an interest as I was once a member of Camden Borough Council. It is used regularly in others and even occasionally in Westminster, where I was a Member of Parliament.
	I realise that my amendment to make it "not less than" three members may not be adequate to correct this situation, although I have taken advice. However, I hope that my noble friend the Minister can at least accept the spirit of my amendment. It is a stand-alone amendment, and the others in this group relate to Clause 125. Indeed, my concerns with Clause 125 standing part will follow smoothly on from Amendment 241C of my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Astor. I will therefore defer my remarks on Clause 125 to follow on from that amendment, thus now yielding the Floor to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, whose Amendments 241D and 241DA are on a different issue. I beg to move.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 241A in this group and the subsequent amendment, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, who is also supporting my amendment. I should make it clear that these two amendments have not been tabled because we disagree on this issue; we agree so totally and fundamentally that these two amendments are almost belt-and-braces measures. I would have liked to add my name to the noble Baroness's amendment. They are very slightly different but in no way less important.
	The Bill constitutes a very important opportunity to address drink-driving and the catalogue of deaths and casualties that occur on the roads because of alcohol consumption. We both would like to bring down the legal blood alcohol level from 80 to 50 milligrams per hundred millilitres of blood; that would bring us in line with many other countries in Europe. However, the best way forward seems to be to see whether all the measures to be implemented under the Bill have an effect on alcohol consumption-hence the concept of their being subject to a review-and for the review to look at legal limits specifically.
	What is the size of the problem? It is estimated that nearly 12,000 reported casualties-5 per cent of all road casualties-are the result of someone driving when over the legal limit and that the number of such people who were killed in 2009 was 380 or 17 per cent of all road fatalities. It is important to remember that pedestrians are sometimes knocked over in these incidents and have a much higher risk of being killed than the person who is in the car, who is usually the person who is over the limit. The injuries sustained by pedestrians are more likely to be fatal as they suffer head or facial injuries, which tend to be more severe.
	The number of hospital admissions due to road accidents in general is enormous. There were 39,000 admissions following road traffic accidents in 2009. Looking just at the drink-driving statistics, an average of 3,000 people are killed or seriously injured each year in drink-driving collisions, and nearly one in six of all deaths on the road involve these drivers, as I said. However, the biggest problem occurs with youngsters. Drink-driving among young men in the 17 to 29 age group is particularly high. Provisional figures from 2004 show that some 590 people were killed in crashes in which a driver was over the legal limit, 2,350 were seriously injured and 14,000 were slightly injured. The key group comprises the 17 to 24 year-olds, of whom 6.3 per cent who were breath tested after an accident failed the test. That compares with an average for all ages of 4.4 per cent. People in this age group seem particularly liable to drive when they have had too much to drink and to have an accident when over the drink-drive limit. Recent data from police checks in England and Wales show that one in 20 of under 25 year-olds who were stopped were over the legal limit. That translates into 1,746 young drivers because more than 27,000 people were stopped by the police in total.
	How do we stop this catalogue of deaths and serious injuries, not only of people who are over the limit but among others? How do we stop the carnage of young lives that are wasted because they have been driving while over the limit? They may not even realise that they are over their limit but their ability to drive safely is seriously impaired. Fatalities often result from stupid little things such as not looking properly, having slightly slower reactions and driving a little too fast on a wet road. That is the background to these amendments. We cannot leave a Bill like this, which is trying to tackle a major social problem, without addressing this alcohol-associated carnage on our roads.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Alcohol Misuse, and as a member of CADD, the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving. As I have already said in the House, four members of that body have lost a relative through drink-driving.
	I am happy to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. I will take his wise words on how to tackle these matters back to Camden. I also support Amendment 241A, standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and myself, and Amendment 241B, standing in my name, which would have the effect of reducing the blood alcohol level for young drivers, should the review show a case for further reform action.
	Statistics on death as a result of alcohol impairment are well known, if not acted upon. We tend to concentrate on death but life-shattering and painful injuries are also a major issue. Indeed, it is mostly thanks to medical advances practised by people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others, as well as the speed and expertise of rescue crews and paramedics, that many who would otherwise have died following these accidents have been saved. However, they are not necessarily saved from a life of pain and impairment. As the Select Committee in another place has emphasised,
	"drink driving is a preventable activity ... On average, ... one person dies every day",
	because drivers were over the limit. The Transport Committee also agreed that,
	"medical and statistical evidence supports a reduction in the current drink drive limit of 80mg ... per 100ml blood".
	However, as we know, the Government do not support such a reduction, at least for the moment, and nor did the committee, despite the wise recommendation of a reduction to 50 milligrams by Sir Peter North, although the Transport Committee would prefer a 20 rather than 50 milligram limit, which is effectively zero.
	Despite the lack of action, I do not give up hope. In particular, it is worth looking within the generality of drivers at the susceptibility of the young to the effects of alcohol. This would also help to achieve the Transport Committee's aim that the Government should work to achieve a 20 milligram level by first introducing a lower limit for young drivers. New Zealand has recognised that young bodies are more affected by alcohol. It therefore has lower limits for young drivers. As its data show, young people start with a relatively high crash risk. For drivers under 20, even at 50 milligrams their risk of having a crash is six times the level of a driver over 30 years of age with the same alcohol consumption. That is why the drink-drive limit in New Zealand is 20 milligrams per 100 millilitres for those under 20.
	The evidence is clear: drink for drink, young drivers are more likely to have accidents than older drivers, quite apart from their level of experience. New Zealand is planning further action to deter young people from drinking and driving, with policies closer to those of America where the drinking age is 21. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that having a drinking age of 21 saves 1,000 young American lives a year, so New Zealand is going to raise the purchase age for alcohol to 20 years. The House will be delighted to hear that that is not where I want to go, but I want to protect our young drivers-and, as the noble Baroness said, their victims, whether they are on the streets or in the cars of those young drivers-from any temptation to drink before getting behind a wheel.
	It is well recognised that driving impairment and crash risks increase with increasing blood alcohol levels. Even at levels of between 50 and 80 milligrammes, drivers with increased blood alcohol levels are six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than those who have not drunk at all. Among drivers killed or seriously injured in the United Kingdom, 87 per cent of those aged between 16 and 24 were over the limit compared with just 13 per cent who were under it. Looking at the figures for all drink-drive accidents rather than injuries, 900 of the 7,500 drivers were under 20-double the accident rate, in relation to the number of licence holders, of the 30-to-34 age group. In terms of miles driven, accidents are six times more likely to occur among that young age group compared with the number among those aged between 30 and 34.
	Tens of deaths and hundreds of serious injuries could be prevented by reducing the limit. With this amendment we have a chance to start on the path of preventing these deaths and injuries by helping young people to say no to drinking and driving. Eight in 10 people in the United Kingdom already believe that if someone has drunk any alcohol they should not drive. Well over half the members of the AA-by which I mean the Automobile Association, not Alcoholics Anonymous-support a lower blood alcohol level. I am sure that the public's support would increase further if they were asked about young people's limits, not because we blame the young for their youthful drinking but because we do not want young lives to be lost, and because they are at greater danger to themselves.
	Furthermore, because our ages are on all our driving licences-sadly, in the case of some of us-it is very easy to determine who would be covered by the new law. With the new digital roadside reading devices it becomes possible to have the exact reading at the point of testing, which has not been possible before, when later analysis of blood had to be relied on.
	I hope that the Minister will in reply indicate the Government's willingness to look at the possibility of a lower limit for young drivers or new drivers. It would be a sensible step that could save lives.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I can be brief in speaking to Amendment 241C. I very much commend Clause 125, which sets in place a review of the effect of the amendments to the licensing scheme. It is common ground between us, whatever side we may be on, that the proposed amendments are highly significant. The Bill provides for a review to take place after five years. In view of the significance of these amendments, Amendment 241C is designed to make that review occur every two, not five, years. That would be much more appropriate, given the significance of the changes that will have been made by the Bill.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: I support the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. There is a range of issues here that cannot wait five years to be reviewed. The amendment proposing a review after two years would be far more acceptable. I also want to draw the attention of Ministers to reports produced by this House way back in 2002, when the European Union Select Committee reviewed drinking and driving legislation and compared it with that of other European countries. The report pressed the case for the limit to be reduced to 50 milligrammes. The puritan Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe chaired that committee, so I recall it very well indeed. We must keep raising these issues, although time may pass by without speedy implementation.
	It was interesting that when I was pulling out my papers on this issue, I came across a press cutting with the headline:
	"MPs and peers cast eye on Lords reform".
	The article continued:
	"A committee on Lords reform is today expected to seek to allay fears that the issue has been kicked into the long grass by agreeing a timetable to put forward proposals by October".
	That article was dated 9 July, 2002.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, given that Clause 125 is totally composed of reviews, I wanted to add a word on the review of ministerial guidance. I do that absolutely in the spirit of Amendment 241C, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, in terms of acceleration.
	Much of the way in which the Licensing Act 2003 has been interpreted has been by virtue of ministerial guidance required under Section 182 of that Act. While the currently proposed legislative changes to that Act have been widely welcomed, they will take time to bed down. If the ministerial guidance were immediately to be reviewed and rewritten-it was last reviewed in November 2010; it has been a running process since 2003-subject to public consultation, many of the concerns addressed in the coalition Government's consultation could be dealt with by providing more balanced guidance to licensing authorities to support them in getting to grips as soon as possible with the adverse effects of licensing.
	In terms of involving the community, there should be an explicit statement in the guidance that local people and their representatives have an important locus in formulating policies, and that the invitation to consult on local licensing policy should ideally be simple and jargon-free, backed up by something like a crystal mark. However, the best way to involve the community more is to improve public awareness of licence applications. The Government could help by revising the currently very prescriptive rules for advertising applications that often do not work. I give an example that was, I think, mentioned in our previous debates. There are fewer and fewer local newspapers, and the advertisements in them are usually in tiny print on inside pages. The responsibility for advertising the applications should be passed to licensing authorities that can decide the most effective way to advertise applications, including circulating notices by post, on the basis of full recovery from the applicant of their reasonable costs.
	What I am about to say may go beyond the scope of this clause, but it would help greatly if local councils, in response to representations from the public and responsible authorities, were to be allowed to introduce policies controlling the cumulative impact of licensed premises-such a provision was precluded from the 2003 Act-whereby the licensing authority can prevent a build-up of problems, rather than waiting until they have occurred.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, those of us involved in this debate for some time are beginning to recognise there is a risk of Brookes to the right and Brookes to the left addressing us from slightly different perspectives, but with the common cause of improving the legislation. We should be careful to get our Brookes in the right order. We must also be careful, as we debate these issues, not to fall into the camps of the puritans or nannies. Labels are hard to get right on this. This group of amendments is particularly odd. It includes an important technical amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. We should also be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lady Hayter for allowing us to debate drink-driving.
	When I considered this issue some time ago, the wisdom that emerged from those who were looking at it was that the problem of drink-driving largely affected the older generations who had perhaps grown up when social conditions were different, whereas the young had got the message that you did not drink and drive. It was a bit like the success of the seat belt campaigns that resulted, after time and effort put in all round, in everyone, or at least the younger generation, getting the hang of the fact that you had to put your seat belt on as you got into the car.
	Certainly, I do not have any problem with that; my children do not seem to either. They do that immediately. We borrow from that in the sense that the younger generations picked up that you do not drink and drive; it was something that you just did not do. They organised who was going to drive when they went out. The problem came with the elderly and retired, who perhaps felt that they could hold their drink and drive. The evidence that we have heard today, especially from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is that that is not the case: far too much drink-driving is going on among those groups who previously have not done so. The figures are simply horrific. The catalogue of deaths is too much.
	It is not just those who are driving. We have heard in this and earlier debates of the collateral damage caused by drinking. Those who drive cars where other people have been drinking find themselves less able to concentrate and drive well. Pedestrians and others who are not involved may also run into trouble.
	The evidence is compelling. If you add to that the sense that the younger generation are taking harder drinks, spirits rather than softer drinks such as wines and beers, I wonder whether we have this the right way round. Should we not hear the argument for allowing people to drink and drive, rather than debating whether there is a safe limit at which people can drink and drive?
	I realise that I am stepping a little further than my party has previously been on this, but we are in the delightful situation of having a policy review, so I am taking advantage of what I assume is a blank piece of paper. I sense a little support from my Back Benches. The evidence points us in one way, and we should examine the issue more carefully than simply trying to debate the niceties-although I accept that it is a serious point-of whether 80 milligrammes is right or whether it should be lower for younger people. Perhaps the Minister can add that to the list of issues that she will tackle while she remains in post-which in some ways I hope is not a long time, but long enough to allow her to make some progress here. Driving is a social condition to which we have a permissive approach, and we would not want to change that, but we recognise that matters such as the use of seat belts, phones, drugs, cigarettes and drinks all impact on safety. As a licence is issued to people to drive, it should be accompanied by other measures. The Minister is already building up a list, so I look forward to hearing her comments.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, Amendment 241ZC would amend Clause 123, which deals with local licensing policy statements, to amend the separate provisions in the Licensing Act 2003 about the composition of a licensing sub-committee. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville for his letter to my noble friend Lady Browning giving us advance warning of his contribution today. I understand that he has a specific concern that some sub-committees may be sitting with fewer than three members. We believe that the law is clear on this point, but I assure him that the guidance will clarify that sub-committees with fewer than three members sitting will not be quorate.
	Clause 125 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to review the effect of those clauses in Part 2 that impose a regulatory burden on businesses or civil society organisations. This follows the Government's commitment in the coalition agreement to,
	"impose 'sunset clauses' on regulations and regulators to ensure that the need for each regulation is regularly reviewed".
	My noble friend asks when the statutory guidance required under Section 182 will next be reviewed. I hope that he will be reassured when I say that we will be making a substantial revision of the guidance as part of the process of implementing the Bill after Royal Assent. I can also confirm that the statutory review will consider the effects of the measures on the scheme established by the Licensing Act, including consequential amendments to secondary legislation and guidance. We also intend to make regulations requiring licensing authorities to advertise applications on their websites. They must already do so in the case of reviews.
	Amendments 241A and 241B would include the effect of drink-driving in the statutory review. They would also commit the Government to changing the law on drink-driving in particular ways if the review demonstrated an increase in drink-driving. I must say at the outset that I appreciate the intention behind these amendments. I assure the Committee that the Government are committed to take further action to tackle drink-driving, building on the long-term reductions we have seen in the toll of road casualties that it causes.
	However, the proposed amendment would be difficult to implement in practice. It is not feasible to have an alcohol limit of zero, suggested by paragraph (b) in both Amendments 241A and 241B, for a particular class of drivers, because it is sometimes possible to detect the presence of alcohol in the bodies of people who have not consumed alcoholic beverages. Furthermore, it would be difficult to link any changes to the incidence of drink-driving directly to the provisions of the Bill. Indeed, it is challenging even to measure the incidence of drink-driving. It is not self-reported and offence data are influenced by enforcement practices.
	The Government recently responded to an independent review with a package of measures to improve the effectiveness of the existing drink-drive limit. We have decided not to change that limit, for the reasons I have given: that would impose social and economic costs that are not matched by potential benefits. I also point out that other countries may have a lower limit, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned, but even then they do not necessarily have a better record on reducing drink-drive casualties.
	However, we consider this to be a very important area. We have announced a range of measures in the new strategic framework for road safety to help the police enforce the law against drink-driving more efficiently. These include: removing the option for drivers who fail an evidential breath test by 40 per cent or less to request a blood or urine test; mandating drink-drive rehabilitation courses for disqualified drink-drivers; and developing portable evidential digital breathalysers to make it possible for the police to get evidence at the roadside and other locations.
	We do not suggest that any given quantity of alcohol is safe. To some extent, I am in line with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on that point. Our message is clear: do not drink and drive. If motorists do not take that advice and exceed the limit, they deserve stiff penalties.
	Amendment 241C, introduced by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, would require the Government to review the effect of the clauses after two years. The review date of five years, for which the Bill provides, fulfils the Government's commitment to review new primary legislation that imposes a regulatory burden on businesses or civil society organisations. This timescale has been established as a standard period across different review processes, including the post-legislative scrutiny we are addressing here. We have also announced our intention to review the parts of the alcohol measures that are not subject to statutory requirement in the same five-year period.
	Furthermore, if there are warning signs that the legislation is having unintended consequences, nothing in the Bill prevents an earlier review on an exceptional basis. Such a review might be triggered, for example, if evidence from the licensed trade or civic society organisations demonstrates that a measure in the Bill is causing significant harm not matched by any benefits in targeting alcohol-related problems.
	However, it would be a mistake to impose a two-year review as a statutory requirement. Five years has been established as a guideline supported by the practical justification of the need to gather sufficient information to enable the effect of the regulation to be properly understood. The production of statistics necessarily lags some time behind events, so a review within two years risks having too little information available on which to base its conclusions. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment and remarks. I am never quite sure whether the penultimate "a" in the geographical title of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is a long "a" or a short "a", so I shall simply refer to him as Lord Stevenson.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: For the avoidance of doubt, I refer the noble Lord to the Companion. He really ought to try it, because there are two Lord Stevensons, and it would be very confusing for me if he were in some way confusing me with the other Lord Stevenson, as the noble Lord did with Lord Brooke earlier.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am grateful for that correction. I shall therefore refer to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, as Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and he can tell me afterwards if I am right.
	The noble Lord alluded to the contributions made by me and my namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. Investing $20 with a particular printer in the midwest gave me the telephone numbers of 18,000 people called Brooke spelt in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, and I spell it. I demonstrated that 5,000 of that 18,000-much the largest phalanx-were in West Yorkshire. By definition the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, is much more senior to myself. Only one-eighth of my blood is from West Yorkshire, but three-eighths is from Ulster, which in Gilbertian language passes for Yorkshire in the dusk with the light behind you, and indeed vice versa.
	My principal gratitude is to my noble friend the Minister whose answers were entirely satisfactory and I am extremely grateful for them. I feel bad about adding one question to him. I am delighted to hear that the guidance will insist that licensing authorities print the applications on their website. However, that still leaves open the question that I raised with him under Clause 106 last week, on which he very kindly said he would write to me, about the difference between 28 days after the application is received and 28 days after the application is put on the website. I hope that I will get an encouraging answer on that subject between now and when the guidance is issued. I am grateful to him for nodding his head. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 241ZC withdrawn.
	Clause 123 agreed.
	Clause 124 agreed.
	Clause 125 : Review of effect of amendments on licensing scheme
	Amendments 241A to 241C not moved.
	Clause 125 agreed.
	Clause 126 : Late night levy requirement
	Amendment 241CA
	 Moved by Lord Clement-Jones
	241CA: Clause 126, page 88, line 11, at end insert-
	"( ) Nothing in this Chapter applies to holders of club premises certificates."

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we now move to the very important part of the Bill relating to the late-night levy. The House may be relieved to hear that I shall speak extremely briefly to Amendment 241CA and to Amendments 241EA, 241GA, 241GB, 241KA, 241MZA and 241SA. The arguments about private members' clubs have been made already under the EMRO discussion.
	The Minister said there are clubs and clubs, but the arguments are very powerful for private members' clubs to be dealt with differently under the EMRO and the late-night levy provisions. I hope that the Minister will give that further thought since private members' clubs have a self-regulatory process, and if that process is not properly operative then they should not receive private members' club premises certificates. It is as simple as that. They are subject to greater regulation than ordinary licensed premises and for that very reason should be excluded from the operation of the late-night levy.
	Moving on to the next group of amendments, Amendments 241D, 241E, 241F, 241G, 241L and 241M, I am afraid that I will be slightly longer. Amendment 241D extends the ability of licensing authorities to determine the extent of the geographical spread of the levy area so that it need not apply to the whole local authority area. This is one of the great weaknesses of this provision for the late-night levy. It is a very blunt instrument, dealing with the whole of a local authority area.
	Amendment 241E deals with Clause 126(4), which prohibits the licensing authority from applying the levy as it is currently stated in only part of its area. Removing this provision would allow licensing authorities to designate a particular town or city centre within its control as being liable for the late-night levy rather than being totally broad-brush in its approach. A large number of trade organisations are particularly concerned about the untargeted nature of the proposed late-night levy. A licensing authority may not decide that the late-night levy requirement is to apply only in part of its area, which means that community pubs in particular will be affected by a requirement which is presumably really aimed at addressing the challenges in town and city centres. The power can only be applied across a licensing authority district as a whole rather than a specific area, and its untargeted nature means that many responsible businesses will be caught.
	A late-night levy can be imposed irrespective of whether a bar is a source of disturbance. Ultimately it is unfair that any licensed premises operating in a responsible manner should have to pay such a charge when the best course of action would be specifically to tackle the irresponsible operator or indeed individual members of the public who cause problems.
	The Government justify this measure on the basis that the easiest, most effective way of dealing with the issue is to go for the whole council route because it is viewed as less bureaucratic, and that the levy must be attractive to licensing authorities by being simple to introduce. However, we must not put the levy on to properly run businesses. If they are forced by a combination of the levy and EMROs to close at midnight, as I said to an earlier amendment, this will simply mean that young people will spill out on the streets at 11 pm, as they always used to do, which is clearly not going to be conducive to public order. It is patently unfair, as was pointed out in Committee in the other place, to impose a charge on a business which may be 20 miles away from the source of the problem, and it cannot be justified.
	It is understood that premises could apply to the licensing authority to reduce their hours without being charged a fee but it should be recognised that this option still places a cost on businesses, not just in their management time or legal fees in making such an application but also in potential lost revenue from reducing the trading time of their business.
	Moving on to Amendment 241F, the levy will be applicable to any premises holding a licence to sell alcohol under the Licensing Act 2003 if it is open for just one day after the time stipulated in the late-night levy, which will most likely be midnight. This means that any pub, hotel, restaurant and so on which has permission to sell alcohol, even on just one night in the year, will become liable for the levy, and this will catch many venues with restricted late-night opening to cover such events as New Year's Eve and bank holidays. That is the reason for inserting "15" instead of "one" in this amendment.
	Amendment 241G is very similar to a previous amendment on EMROs. It ensures that premises that open late only once a year on New Year's Eve are not required to pay the levy. This would alleviate an unnecessary cost burden on thousands of small pub businesses which would otherwise have to pay the levy. The Bill makes provision to impose a late-night levy on all premises licensed to sell alcohol between midnight and 6 am. The levy would be imposed at the licensing authority's discretion across the entire local authority area. The funds raised would cover the costs of policing and other arrangements for the reduction or prevention of crime and disorder in connection with the supply of alcohol between midnight and 6 am. As it stands, the late-night levy unfairly penalises responsible retailers by applying to all licence holders and not just those who trade irresponsibly by contributing to alcohol-related disorder. This new measure will indeed introduce further costs for responsible businesses when powers to deal with irresponsible traders already exist.
	I move on to Amendment 241L. As the Bill stands, licensing authorities could introduce an early-morning restriction order beginning at 12.30 am and running through to 6 am, and impose a levy on all premises that remained open until 12.30 am. Surely it is not intended that this combination of EMRO and levy should punish those caught out in this way. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have Amendments 241DA, 241H, 241J, 241K, 241N, 241R and 241S in this group. There is a concern that the late-night levy will not be used very much because of the bureaucracy and costs involved in the scheme, and because only a few local authorities have enough late-night venues to make it worth them running the scheme. We wait to see but, again, my concern is about central prescription.
	I understand that the Government regard the levy as a tax and so say that it must be prescribed centrally. I wonder whether that is a bit circular. Can you be a bit circular? You either are or you are not-perhaps it is elliptical. If a local authority had discretion regarding the amount of the levy to reflect the costs, would that make it a charge rather than a tax? Therefore, to mix my metaphors, I am not sure which is egg and which is chicken in all this, but I firmly believe that the levy should be locally determined on the basis of full cost recovery.
	I asked the Local Government Association about the costs associated with late-night operation, and your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that the list includes things such as street cleansing, taxi marshals and clearing up in the widest way after the large amount of activity late at night.
	The consultation with local authorities on the regulations that relate to all this will be very important but there is a big cost. Because of that, I have transposed the 70:30 split so that in my amendment 70 per cent goes to local authorities to deal with things such as community safety initiatives, regulatory costs and other matters which I have already mentioned. After all, although I know that the police, too, could do with lots more money, they are already funded for areas of high-priority policing. The LGA has commented to me that police commissioners will be attracted to the idea of acquiring 70 per cent of the levy and may place significant pressure on their local authority to bring in the scheme. However, how the police's 70 per cent should be spent or, perhaps more importantly, where, is not specified. The money could be raised in one area of the police force but used in another.
	Amendment 241D reflects the concern of my noble friend in his amendment that local authority areas are not homogenous. If this new power is to be brought in it would be sensible for it to be focused and directed. Amendment 241H would take out the prescription of the amount of the levy. It is fair enough for it to be calculated by way of a the formula, which is what Clause 129(1)(b) provides, but not the amount- Clause 129(1)(a) refers to that. I mentioned the 30-70 split which is referred to in Amendment 241N. Amendments 241R and 241S are about prescription and Amendment 241K is a proposed new clause to provide a power for each licensing authority to set the levy for the reasons to which I have already alluded.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, we seem to be running into a little more difficulty with this group of amendments in terms of what the Bill is trying to achieve, and I look forward to the Minister's response. Although, you can see where this idea has come from in the sense of the additional costs and other burdens on those with responsibilities in licensing areas, it seems to be a rather overbureaucratic approach. The overlap with the EMRO is not clear to understand-that point has already been made by other noble Lords. The reason why some aspects of this form of imposition are centrally determined and run by the Home Office and some are left to local areas is not at all clear. There is a problem about the scale and extent to which in any authority it would be sufficiently worth while for the licensing authority to introduce a local levy of this type. The case has yet to be made for a late-night levy.
	Alongside that runs the argument that businesses already contribute to the community through their business rates. A proportion of revenue from business rates goes to fund local police and fire services-indeed all services-that will be drawn on in the sense that the Bill addresses this point. It seems to us that the late-night levy unfairly penalises responsible retailers by applying a levy to all licence holders and not just those who are trading irresponsibly. Funds raised in out-of-town centre premises will finance additional policing and other measures targeted at the late-night disorder in town centres because that is where it happens. Is it really fair for a village shopkeeper to pay for reducing disorder that they could not possibly have caused?
	Businesses that sell alcohol and put on live music contribute to the community through their licence fees. Licence fees for selling alcohol and for regulated entertainment reflect the costs to the licensing authority of administration and enforcement of the licence. The point has been argued before and we think that it is fair. The proposed late-night levy would be a third tax-an additional cost and a stealth tax on the ability to operate at odd times of the day and night. It would affect small music venues that operate past midnight with entirely disproportionate consequences.
	I wonder whether the Minister is aware that the CBI said recently that the late-night levy proposal contradicts the Government's ambition for the creative industries to provide a key pillar of growth in the economic recovery and seems to be undoing some of the Government's good work in supporting small live music venues.

Baroness Browning: My Lords, it might be appropriate if I begin by reminding the House that the late-night levy was a coalition commitment that we would permit local councils to charge more for late-night licences to pay for additional policing. Unlike other measures that we have discussed so far in relation to this licensing section of the Bill, which specifically give more tools to licensing authorities to deal with the problems that they experience with crime and disorder related to drinking and alcohol, this clause is quite different. I am well aware that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, asked in our debate on an earlier amendment whether there was a change in the Government's approach to this. If I say yes, it is clearly demonstrated in this particular clause because the clause is not about a measure under which licensing authorities would intervene to address specific problems of alcohol consumption. This is exactly what it says on the packet; it is a tax that is specifically for the repayment to the public services funded by taxpayers for the on-costs that they incur as a result of the late-night economy.
	I welcome the opportunity to put on record the principles and thinking behind this levy. First, the levy, as set out in the existing framework, will provide a much needed power for licensing authorities. It will allow them to raise a valuable contribution toward policing costs resulting from the late-night supply of alcohol. To meet this purpose, it must be paid by all who profit from the practice, wherever they are placed. Secondly, the levy will be simple for licensing authorities to adopt; I do not agree that it will be bureaucratic. Thirdly, and finally, the levy will be a fair and proportionate contribution from businesses to enforcement costs. Processes will be transparent and local services will be accountable. In many of our towns and cities, the police experience considerable costs in keeping the late-night environment safe. Alcohol-related crime and disorder are rarely isolated to specific premises. Those on a night out will often visit a variety of premises. Just as businesses share the benefits of customers moving around, they should also share some of the costs generated by the supply of alcohol late at night.
	The application of the levy must be as wide as possible. It will be paid by all businesses that profit from supplying alcohol late at night, subject to some exemptions and reductions. On this point, I will consider the lead amendment in the group. A wide variety of premises operate under club premises certificates. Removing all liability would exclude contributions from many businesses that also profit from selling alcohol in the late-night environment. We will consider exemptions and reductions in consultation before writing secondary legislation. I hope to explore the different types of business that operate under a club premises certificate before preparing our consultation. Therefore, we should not put this blanket exemption in the Bill. I say to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones that I did not mean to be flippant in my earlier remark about club premises. I hope he will take it from me that while club premises benefit from the late-night economy, I accept that there are different types of clubs and I hope that he will take some comfort from the fact that we will consider very carefully in consultation the exemptions and reductions before secondary legislation is introduced.
	If we gave a licensing authority the power to target the levy on a specific part of its area, this, too, would mean that fewer businesses would contribute. This would risk the levy raising barely enough to cover administrative costs and failing in its objective of raising a meaningful amount for the police. That is what we intend to do where the levy is applied: raise a meaningful amount of money for the police, who in turn must cover the costs of policing.
	I am aware of concern that the levy is not sufficiently targeted. However, we must be clear that it is not designed to target specific pockets of crime and disorder. Clauses and amendments that we debated earlier focused on the need for the licensing authority to have the flexibility to target and focus on the areas that it deems have problems. The levy is not about that; it is about raising money for the police. I am still committed to helping communities tackle areas with specific alcohol-related problems, and I hope that other measures in the Bill will address that. We have already discussed early-morning restriction orders, which are there to address those sorts of problems. This power will enable licensing authorities to restrict the sale of alcohol in specific areas, at specific problem times on specific days. We have addressed the need to enhance the powers of the licensing authority, but that is not the purpose of the amendment.
	Many other changes have been proposed in the amendments, and many ideas expressed. Some amendments would remove the burden of licensing authority accountability processes. The processes are necessary; licensing authorities should not worry about incurring costs from introducing the levy. They can deduct their administrative expenses from the levy receipts. As well as the levy funding the additional costs-not total or hypothecated costs, but as a contribution to the overall cost of policing-there is a facility for the local authority to deduct its administrative expenses from levy receipts.
	A number of amendments seek to grant more local authority discretion, such as in setting the level of charge. However, we believe the charge must be nationally set to ensure that it is a standardised, fair and proportionate contribution from businesses. In light of the high policing costs that I have already described, I believe it is right for the police to receive the bulk of the contribution. We must also be careful not to create extra evidential burdens for licensing authorities in having to justify their choices of area and charge. The levy will not be another alcohol disorder zone, which was extremely bureaucratic. In fact, it was so burdensome that no local authorities adopted it.
	One amendment considers corporate responsibility initiatives as a potential reduction from the charge and another looks at exempting New Year's Eve. We mentioned these special exemptions and special days in other amendments. I can assure noble Lords that our upcoming consultation will consider exemptions and reductions in relation to members of business-led initiatives and special occasions. I am aware that many business-led schemes seek to mitigate late-night alcohol conditions and problems, particularly anti-social behaviour, and there will be an opportunity in the consultation period for representations from businesses that have already adopted them to make their views known. On this basis, these amendments pre-empt our public consultation.
	With regard to other special occasions, I am confident that we have made good provision for premises to use temporary event notices. All these amendments reflect some of the wider discussions that took place during the development of the levy scheme and its ongoing analysis by our partners. I believe that we have struck the right balance. Significant administrative and legal burdens have purposely been avoided. We have created a tool which licensing authorities can easily use. The late-night levy will be a proportionate contribution towards policing costs shared by all businesses that profit from selling alcohol in a safe late-night economy. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: I shall make two points on the Minister's comments. First, she said that the standard level of the levy needs to be set nationally to ensure that there is a proportionate contribution from business. Is it not the case that there will be different costs in different areas? That is in the nature of the diversity of the country and of local authorities. Therefore, to set a standard levy may not reflect that diversity.
	My second point is about Part 1-that seems so long ago that I wrote down the title of the Bill and then realised that we are still on it. We talked a lot about the need for police forces and local authorities to work in collaboration and co-operation, and I hope we will come back to this on report. In proposing that more resources go to local authorities, perhaps the Government will see that in the context of local authorities working with their police forces to deal with the impact of some of the difficulties arising from the late-night economy.

Baroness Browning: I hope I can reassure my noble friend that this levy has been designed to raise money for the police, who bear the brunt of late night enforcement costs. As such, we believe they should receive the majority of the levy revenue after administrative expenses have been deducted. The local authority now works with the police and in future will work with the police and crime commissioner, so there will be a very close working relationship between the two to identify whether a licensing authority wishes to apply the levy.
	My noble friend mentioned disproportionality in the levy charges. They have yet to be set. We have published only indicative figures. We currently plan to structure the levy charges on the existing licence fee bands, which, as my noble friend will know, are predicated upon the rateable value, so although this will be nationally set, it will be indicative of regional differences in bandings. In that way, we hope to have fairness and proportionality in the way in which the charges are structured.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, which I found to be rather a curate's egg. Of course, I accept that the levy proposal was in essence contained in the coalition agreement. She will notice that no clause stand part debate is proposed from this or any side of the House. I do not think there is a great quarrel around the House with the principle of the levy. Certainly, I did not pick that up during the debate. It is all about the way in which the levy will operate and the interrelationship with EMROs. In particular, it is about the nature of the exemptions and the blanket nature of the levy.
	I am pleased to hear that the Minister in the consultation will reflect the different types of clubs and will specifically look for different types of exemption, which is welcome. I would never apply the word "dusty" to this Minister's replies, but I did think that the Home Office is erecting quite a brick wall to the idea that one can be rather more flexible about the way in which the levy operates. I know that the Minister said that it was not a crime and disorder provision but was all about policing. However, it seems grossly unfair that in a local authority with a mixture of rural and urban, the rural pubs, many of which are struggling, have to pay a levy when they will not see a policeman in a million years. Why on earth should they pay for this?
	A huge issue is involved, which seems contradictory. This Government are, I think, the first Government to appoint a Minister with responsibility for community pubs, which was a great thing. He is doing a great job but in a rather different department from the Home Office. However, the policy does not seem to be joined up. Here we have a great deal of work going on in DCLG about planning and the various aspects of the survival of the community pub. We have the Government in a very welcome fashion supporting a Private Member's Bill that I have put forward about live music, which is designed to preserve the community pub, and certainly the smaller community pub, in many ways. However, here we are with a provision that will directly impact them if their local authority is a large one that includes a lively, to say the least, city centre. That is a major problem.

Baroness Browning: I have heard what my noble friend says, and I of course understand the situation for rural pubs, having represented 650 square miles of rural Devon for nearly 20 years. I will take away what he has said. I cannot make any promises today, but I hope he will remember that I said that there would be a consultation on exemptions. The point that he has made today will be noted.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I knew that if I carried on talking for long enough she might respond. I will have to use that technique on more occasions. In the mean time, I thank the Minister for her response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 241CA withdrawn.
	Amendments 241D to 241E not moved.
	Clause 126 agreed.
	Clause 127 : "Relevant late night authorisation" and related definitions
	Amendments 241EA to 241GB not moved.
	Clause 127 agreed.
	Clause 128 agreed.
	Clause 129 : Amount of late night levy
	Amendments 241H to 241J not moved.
	Clause 129 agreed.
	Amendment 241K not moved.
	Clause 130 : Payment and administration of the levy
	Amendments 241KA to 241MZA not moved.
	Clause 130 agreed.
	Clause 131 agreed.
	Clause 132 : Application of net amount of levy payments
	Amendments 241MA and 241N not moved.
	Clause 132 agreed.
	Amendment 241P
	 Moved by Lord Clement-Jones
	241P: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause-
	"Accountability of police
	(1) The local police force must provide a written report to the local authority at the end of each levy year where a levy is applied to the local authority area.
	(2) The report is to be submitted to the local authority within 12 weeks of the end of the levy period.
	(3) The report must contain-
	(a) details of the amount received through the levy and the amount spent by the police in policing the areas covered by the late night levy during the hours that it applies; and
	(b) details of the impact of the levy on crime and disorder in the area covered by the levy."

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I can be brief on this amendment and Amendment 241Q, which is grouped with it. These new clauses would ensure that there is accountability for the funds raised and distributed to the police and the licensing authority, which are not obliged under the Bill as it stands to apply the moneys to the late night levy area. They are able to use the funds within their general expenses as they see fit. These proposed new clauses will ensure that those who are subject to the levy are informed about the application of the funds, which are to deliver improvements in the area to which they are applied. I beg to move.

Baroness Browning: My Lords, while other amendments have tried to reduce administrative processes, these two amendments attempt to add a publishing requirement on the police and the licensing authorities. I hope that noble Lords will agree that transparency already exists in the late night levy design. I believe that the levy will achieve an appropriate level of transparency and no further reports are required. We will require licensing authorities to consult on proposals and publish the expenses they incur in administering the levy. The police are being reformed to make them more accountable.
	Let me deal first with the police. The money given to the police from the late night levy will go into the police fund for the force area and be subject to the relevant scrutiny processes. We believe that it will be a waste of police resources and unnecessary bureaucracy to require the police to provide a report for the levy spend in particular. Further checks and balances will exist under police and crime commissioners. The PCC will be publicly scrutinised by the police and crime panel. Any data used in that scrutiny will be made public unless they are operationally sensitive, and PCCs will also be subject to freedom of information provisions.
	With regard to the licensing authority, transparency is provided in the pre-levy consultation process. This consultation will consider, among other things, the services which the licensing authority intends to provide from its levy revenue. The authority will then write to all affected premises to inform them of its final decision. The public will not need yet another publication setting out how the licensing authority spends the levy funds. Further, the Bill will require licensing authorities to publish a statement of the administration expenses which they have deducted from the levy revenue. The licensing authority, as an integral part of the council, is of course accountable to the public.
	The late night levy is light on administration and process. It has been designed as a contribution towards policing costs from those who profit from the sale of alcohol in the late night. To require an assessment of the impact of the levy on crime and disorder, as these amendments seek, would confuse the objective of the late night levy with tools such as early morning restriction orders which, as I have already mentioned in response to previous amendments, are specifically designed to tackle particular pockets of alcohol-related crime and disorder. I believe that necessary transparency is adequately provided for to ensure that levy receipts are spent in an appropriate way.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that quite complex and useful response. Her argument is that there are many ways, other than those provided by the amendment, in which transparency is achieved. The amendment also seeks accountability, which is also an important principle that is involved. I shall read what the Minister said extremely carefully and consider whether the existing framework is adequate to explain what the levy is devoted to, and how useful it is in the context. I am very grateful to the Minister for her reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 241P withdrawn.
	Amendment 241Q not moved.
	Clauses 133 and 134 agreed.
	Clause 135 : Introduction or variation of late night levy requirement: procedure
	Amendments 241R to 241SA not moved.
	Clause 135 agreed.
	Clause 136 : Permitted exemption and reduction categories
	Amendment 241T
	 Moved by Lord Clement-Jones
	241T: Clause 136, page 94, line 24, at beginning insert "other"

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I shall not detain the House too long. It would be easy to spend time talking about some of the schemes that would justify an appropriate discount. However, I shall first move Amendment 241T. By a strange quirk of grouping, the Minister has already partly responded on the concept of a discount for these community-type schemes. The effect of these amendments would be to require the levy to be reduced by 50 per cent per premises participating in well established, recognised corporate responsibility initiatives-specifically, Best Bar None, business improvement districts, Purple Flag, Pubwatch, community alcohol partnerships and other similar watch initiatives, all of which demonstrably reduce the incidence of crime and disorder in town centres. These could be undermined if participating businesses were required to fund all these bespoke schemes and a more general levy. To acknowledge the contribution and investment that industry has made to improving standards and addressing challenges in the night-time economy, particularly in town and city centres, it is therefore appropriate that these high-profile initiatives are identified in the Bill as requiring a reduced levy. This will also safeguard the initiatives themselves and encourage further take-up in areas where such partnership approaches do not yet exist.
	I dare say that many of us have received correspondence from some of the projects, particularly the business improvement districts. I have received several of those. The Nottinghamshire Leisure business improvement district experience is extremely interesting. Some of the correspondence relates to the community alcohol partnerships, which have also been very successful. I understand that the Government plan to recognise in guidance, and perhaps in regulation, the nature of these schemes and the fact that they will receive discounts. However, I hope that they can be a little more forward in the Bill by recognising that that will definitely be provided for. I beg to move.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, I support the previous speech and the amendments that it introduced. On this side of the House, we believe that premises that work with the police and local authorities to minimise crime and disorder should qualify for a reduction in the late night levy. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that it would be helpful if this could be put in the Bill, not just because we like to see things in legislation but because it is so important that we recognise what they are doing.
	In many cases, for example, these venues are safe havens for young people. If you put young people in a protected environment rather than having them out on the streets you are doing some public good. In a sense, that is something that we want to encourage and we would be grateful if it could be considered in that way. Well run and responsible venues already participate in voluntary schemes to combat anti-social behaviour, and if they are forced to close at midnight to avoid the levy then they will effectively be throwing their young clientele out of a safe venue onto the streets.

Baroness Browning: My Lords, licensing authorities will have the discretion to decide which of the exemption and reduction categories they will apply in their application of the levy. Although I am unable to accept these amendments, I welcome their overall intention. It is precisely these types of premises and the schemes that they run that we want to consider for reductions from the levy charge. However, the amendments would prejudge our public consultation on exemptions and reductions, which we will introduce through regulations.
	We have already begun the design of that consultation through a number of working groups, with representatives of the trade, licensing authorities and the police. I would urge noble Lords to await this consultation so that we might have the opportunity fully to consider the views of our partners. There are many schemes, such as the ones mentioned this afternoon, that allow the business community to work together to address some of the negative effects of the sale of alcohol in the night-time economy. I support the principle that drives these local initiatives. However, there is a range of such initiatives and we need to consider the breadth of these schemes and how we might define workable categories for reductions. On that basis, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which gives all the right signals in terms of the kind of scheme that would be included. Of course, I was trying to prejudge the consultation to a degree, but I elicited a response from the Minister that is helpful.
	Having reached the last amendment dealing with the licensing and levy in Part 2, I must say that an awful lot of weight is now being borne on the consultation. On many occasions replying to groups of amendments today, the Minister has relied on the efficacy and fairness of that consultation to business, particularly, but also to residents and local authorities. I hope that she gets it right because it is of huge significance that the balance and outcome of that consultation are fair. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 241T withdrawn.
	Amendments 241U to 241X not moved.
	Clause 136 agreed.
	Clauses 137 to 139 agreed.
	Clause 140 : Amendments of the Licensing Act 2003
	Amendment 241Y not moved.
	Clause 140 agreed.
	Clause 141 agreed.
	Amendments 242 to 244 not moved.
	House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 5.10 pm.

Southern Cross
	 — 
	Statement

Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall now repeat as a Statement the Answer given earlier today by my honourable friend the Minister for care services to an Urgent Question tabled in another place about the steps that the Government are taking regarding Southern Cross Healthcare. The Statement is as follows.
	"The Government have made it very clear that the welfare of residents living in Southern Cross homes is paramount. We appreciate that recent events and media speculation have caused concern to residents in Southern Cross care homes and their relatives and families. I very much regret that. I would like to assure everybody that no one will find themselves homeless or without care. The Government will not stand by and let that happen.
	Department of Health officials have been in frequent contact with Southern Cross's senior management over the last three months and that will continue. We are engaged with the company, the landlords and lenders and are monitoring the situation closely. The Government are acting to ensure that all parties involved are working towards swift resolution, with a comprehensive plan for the future which must have the welfare of residents at its heart. It is for Southern Cross, its landlords and those with an interest in the business to put in place a plan that stabilises the business and ensures operational continuity of the care homes. That work is happening and we must let it continue. Let me be very clear: this is a commercial sector problem and we look to the commercial sector to solve it. All the business interests understand their responsibilities. The Government are also working closely with the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, the Local Government Association, local authorities and the CQC to ensure that robust local arrangements are in place to address the consequences in the event that the company's restructuring plan failed to put the business on a stable footing.
	Yesterday, a meeting took place between Southern Cross, lenders and the landlords' committee. They agreed to work together to deliver a consensual solution to the company's current financial problems over the next four months. They also made clear that the continuity and quality of care to all 31,000 residents will be maintained and every resident will be well looked after. This is a welcome development and the Government are encouraged by this positive agreement by the main stakeholders. The exact details of the restructuring plan over the next four months will be set out over the next few days and the following weeks. The Government will continue to keep close contact with the process. I will keep the House informed.
	Local authorities have a duty to provide care to anyone who has an urgent need for it. All parties are aware of their roles and responsibilities should that happen and will take decisive action to ensure that no resident is left homeless or without care. The statement released yesterday provides further reassurance that the continuity of care of the residents is at the centre of the consensual restructuring agreement".
	That concludes the Statement.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Answer to the Question raised in the other place. While news of yesterday's agreement is welcome and will, I hope, reassure Southern Cross's residents and their families, a number of questions arise.
	First, it is understand that Her Majesty's Revenues and Customs is a major creditor. Has it been involved in the discussions and is it comfortable with the outcome to date? Secondly, will the Government ensure that both they and the Local Government Association-representing the interests of many of the residents, including but not limited to those who are publically funded-will be involved in any further discussions over the future of the company's operations? Thirdly, what steps if any have the Government taken or will they take in relation to the company's workforce, for whom this is also a most anxious time? According to today's Times, 42,500 of them have already had their contracts ripped up and are facing the prospect of 3,000 jobs being lost.
	As for the underlying, systemic issue, do not these events underline the folly of the previous Conservative Government in effectively driving local authorities out of the provision of residential care by deliberately financially disincentivising such provision in favour of the private sector? Can it be healthy for five or six private companies to dominate the market to the extent of around 36 per cent, with Southern Cross alone supplying 31,000 out of 170,000 places? Is it not totally unacceptable for frail and vulnerable elderly people to be treated like commodities, to be bought and sold as part of some ingenious financial engineering?
	Did not Mr Hammarberg, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, have a point, as reported in the Telegraph, when he singled out for criticism the UK model of privatised social hair combs-sorry, I meant to say care homes; I am not too familiar with combs these days. He went on to say that privatisation, "is not the solution", with a high number of privatised care homes in crisis. Is he not right to express concerns that,
	"the quality of services in these homes had 'deteriorated to a worrying degree'",
	and that companies,
	"running the care homes have reduced services in order to remain solvent"?
	The Answer to the Question proclaims:
	"this is a commercial sector problem and we look to the commercial sector to solve it".
	Is that not too narrow-one might almost say, too much like an accountant's view of the problem? Would not the Minister agree that this is first and foremost a health and social care issue? Is not the commercial aspect very much part of the problem? Does not this in fact send out warning signals in relation to the role of the private sector in the provision of healthcare and whatever emerges as the reborn Health and Social Care Bill?
	Finally, will the Government support and encourage co-operative, mutual and third sector organisations to engage in the future running of at least some of the Southern Cross care homes, if the rescue package does not succeed? In the longer term and in any event, will they promote a mixed economy of such care provision across the country to include local authorities and the private, voluntary and community sectors?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his comments and questions. He asked a number of the latter. First, he asked specifically about the HMRC. I asked that question myself of my officials. It is quite clear that any discussion with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has to be a matter for the company. HMRC makes its own judgments in any discussions with companies. It is a separate statutory body; it may not be lobbied by another government department, nor is it at liberty to discuss the detail of individual company tax affairs with anyone outside HMRC. So it is very much in the hands of the company if it so chooses to enter into the kinds of discussions to which the noble Lord alluded.
	The noble Lord asked whether the LGA would be involved in the discussions over the company's future. As is clear from the Statement, we regard the primary agents in this matter as being the company, its landlords and the lenders involved. They are the people on whose shoulders a restructuring plan depends. Nevertheless, he is right to suggest that the LGA is important in this context; it is involved with the discussions that we have had and will continue to have for some time-not only with the LGA, but with ADAS and the CQC, as well as the representatives of providers-to work through and define better the responsibilities of each party involved, so that if problems arise at a local level, either in this context or in any other similar context, the response will be appropriate. It is important to have that clarity of responsibility.
	The noble Lord asked about the Southern Cross workforce. The key point here is the safety and well-being of the residents. We tasked the CQC to enter into discussions with Southern Cross when it announced redundancies the other day. The CQC's role is to ensure that all care homes meet essential standards of quality and safety and it has confirmed that it will continue to require Southern Cross to demonstrate that all its homes are meeting these essential standards. Any failure to do so may result in enforcement action. I cannot go beyond that and comment on the prospects for the continued employment of the current workforce. All I would say is that the agreement reached yesterday will dispel a great deal of the uncertainty that they must have been feeling in recent days, because we now have the prospect of stability and certainty over the next few months as Southern Cross continues as a viable business with the support of its lenders and landlords.
	The noble Lord moved on to suggest that it was the policies adopted by a previous Conservative Government in encouraging a diverse and plural market for care home provision that has brought us to this pass. I am slightly surprised to hear him say that because I think that one benefit of that policy has been a much greater array of choice open to individuals than there was before-and indeed a choice not just of location but of quality. To cite the problems of Southern Cross as a confounding factor to that is, I think, unfair. The problem with Southern Cross is not the quality of the provision of care but its business model.
	I do not think that there has been any suggestion that the residents of Southern Cross homes have, as a generality, been badly looked after; rather, the issue is that the business model that the directors of Southern Cross adopted was unsustainable. We hope that the restructuring that is now apparently in prospect will address that and that the company can carry on giving the care that it has always done to its residents. Nevertheless, as we said last week when we had a Question in your Lordships' House on this topic, and in reply to the noble Lord's comment about individuals being treated as a business commodity-if I may rephrase his question-that is of course a distasteful idea. To the extent that that has happened, we must acknowledge it. All I would say is that it has not affected the care that those residents have received. If it has disadvantaged anyone, it has been the shareholders.
	The noble Lord suggested that because the Statement made it clear that we regard this as a commercial matter for the commercial organisations to solve, therefore this is not a health and social care issue. Again, that is a little unfair. The Government do not for one minute shirk their own responsibilities in this matter. We have been absolutely at the front in encouraging all parties to come together to reach this consensual agreement, to place the interests of the residents first and to put aside private interests and prejudices as much as possible. It is very encouraging that the statement issued yesterday did just that. There is consensus between the key parties that the interests of the residents are at the front of their minds. The restructuring is something that they are aiming to work through in as short a time as possible. I believe that that is cause for encouragement.
	The noble Lord asked about the future and what might happen, not only in the case of Southern Cross but, I took him to mean, in the care sector generally. I am sure that as we go forward, if all goes well, we will see the kind of diverse market emerging in care home ownership that we have in domiciliary care where, as the noble Lord will be aware, there is a very diverse range of ownership by social enterprises, charities and private organisations of one kind or another that provide domiciliary care. There is scope to make the residential care home sector equally diverse over time. However, as we do that, we need to ensure that it is not just a diverse market but a stable one. I am the first to acknowledge that lessons will need to be learnt from this sorry episode over Southern Cross. If I have failed to answer any of the noble Lord's questions, I shall certainly make up for that in writing.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, after 13 years of a Labour Government who were not in any way reluctant to diversify the residential care market, there is an even greater plurality of providers than there ever was before. One issue that has arisen out of this case is the capacity of the CQC to evaluate the stability and viability in the long term of a company that is owned by a private equity firm. That is a complex task that might even challenge the Financial Services Authority. Does the Minister agree that in order to reach the stable and viable market that he has suggested, there is a need to look at this in a much wider sense than just this case? Does he agree that the discussions that must inevitably follow the publication of the Dilnot inquiry in July should focus on the role of private equity-funded companies in the residential care market and, as he has also suggested, in the domiciliary care market?

Earl Howe: My noble friend raises an important issue. As she knows, care providers have to be able to demonstrate to the Care Quality Commission that they have the financial resources needed to continue to provide services of the required quality. We have embarked on a wide-ranging programme of reform for social care. We are currently considering the Law Commission's recommendations for modernising social care law and, as my noble friend mentioned, the report of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support is imminent. There are many lessons that have to be learnt from the events of recent weeks. We want to reflect on them as part of our wider reform agenda for social care.
	On private equity finance, I simply make my own observation to my noble friend: I do not think that private equity finance is at the root of the problems that we have been seeing but the business model, which is rather a different issue. It was the choices and decisions made by the management of Southern Cross that made the business fundamentally unsustainable. I do not see that as a reflection directly on private equity providers. We have been clear that we were going to take action to ensure that there was proper oversight of the market in social care. That is why the Health and Social Care Bill specifically allows us to extend to social care, if we chose to do so, the proper financial regulatory regime that we are putting in place for the NHS. However, I suggest that regulation is not the only solution; we need to approach this in a measured way, not least because there are complex negotiations under way. We need to look at social care reform as a whole, which is exactly what we have committed to doing.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, on the question of the business model that the Minister just referred to, does not this whole sorry saga reveal how completely out of touch with the world of reality were the main board and executive directors of Three Delta, who advised the Qatar Investment Authority to spend billions buying property in the healthcare sector on the back of inflated and totally unrealistic rent levels paid by companies such as Southern Cross? Were the Qataris made aware of the huge risk involved? What were the so-called great and the good like Sir Peter Middleton, Nick Land, Sir Christopher Howes and David Mellor-a former government Minister-doing when any estate agent in the commercial property sector could have told them that the commercial care property market was both overgeared and overpriced?
	Finally, will Messrs Scott, Murphy, Sizer and Colvin, formerly directors of Southern Cross, be prosecuted for insider dealing in Southern Cross shares when they privately promoted the sale of shares in the months immediately prior to their profits warning and collapse in the share price? Is this whole affair not riddled with greed and stupidity?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I fear that I am unable to answer the noble Lord's questions, for which I apologise, but I understand why he has asked them. If I have some concise answers that I can send him, I will certainly do so by way of a letter.
	I think that the noble Lord and I agree that we are looking at a fundamentally unsound business model. As I understand it, it is a unique business model in the care home sector, where a deliberate decision was taken for the company not to own its own care homes but rather to pay the rent on them. The market clearly moved against it in more than one sense. The company's problems are partly attributable to the occupancy levels of some of their care homes. Southern Cross occupancy levels have gone down, I understand, more than those of other care homes. It is not about fee levels; other providers of residential care are not in the same position as Southern Cross. I believe that Southern Cross's problems relate to the rental agreements-the leases-that they entered into. It is those things that the restructuring aims to fix.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Statement. I listened carefully to what he said about the need for clarity on where responsibility lay. He also stated that there were lessons to be learnt. Will he say when the Government will conclude their review of these lessons, and when and how they will make them public? With the imminent privatisation of the Royal Mail, which has a lot of property worth quite a lot of money, will the Minister say whether some lessons learnt in this exercise might be useful in the context of ensuring that we do not run into similar problems there?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I would love to be able to comment on the Royal Mail, but noble Lords will be sorry to hear that I have not received the necessary briefing. On the timescale of our review, as I indicated to my noble friend Lady Barker, there are a number of elements to our review of social care policy. One is the Dilnot report, which we are expecting at the beginning of July. Another is the Law Commission report. However, a third is undoubtedly the lessons learnt from this episode. It is fair to say that it would be rash of me to give the noble Lord a date on which we will conclude all three strands of that review. It is likely that we will be able to be more definite later on this summer.

Lord Clinton-Davis: If it becomes clear within a reasonable time that Southern Cross and others are unable to put the business on a stable footing, what will then happen, primarily to the residents but also to the workforce? Can the Minister suggest what he has in mind as a fallback position?

Earl Howe: My Lords, the Department of Health is being very clear with the company that we expect it to maintain service continuity and quality of care while the restructuring process is going on. As I have said, our principal concern is for the safety and well-being of the residents of the care homes that might be affected. The CQC will pay particular attention to any care homes where there is a concern that quality may be at risk or inadequate. We are continuing to talk to ADASS, the LGA and the CQC to ensure that contingency plans are in place which will allow for the continuation of care under any eventuality. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I would rather not be drawn into hypotheses as to what might happen if the restructuring does not take place. We must encourage the company to believe that that is the prime and sole option before it. If there is ever a question of a change in the arrangements for providing residential care to any resident of a Southern Cross care home, or indeed any other, the rights of those residents remain absolutely clear in law. The duties of local authorities are absolutely clear in law. I believe that all residents in Southern Cross's homes can rest assured that local authorities are well seized of those duties and processes.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, the Minister has reassured the House that he does not see Southern Cross as the first of many providers to go into crisis. Can he share with the House the advice that he has had to enable him to give us those assurances that Southern Cross is not just the first of a number of providers to go into crisis?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I cannot issue a government guarantee on the continuing business health of every single care home provider in the country; that would be extremely rash. Of course, we know that over the years some providers have gone out of business. What we are seeing in the country at the moment is much more of a trend towards looking after people in their own homes rather than in residential settings. At the same time, the market is doing the opposite because there are more and more elderly people requiring care of some kind. This industry is not going to disappear overnight or, indeed, at all. Over the indefinite future we will require a residential care home industry, particularly as the number of elderly continues to increase. The key will be to ensure that the quality of provision is maintained. Competition will undoubtedly remain, but it is a telling indicator of the current state of the market that there is an overprovision at present of about 50,000 care home places nationally. That perhaps is a sign that local authorities are successfully meeting the wishes and needs of their service users in providing care in the settings which most people want; namely, their own homes.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what safeguards are being put into place so that this situation does not happen again in other care homes and possibly in hospitals?

Earl Howe: My Lords, I think I have already indicated that the Government are proactively engaged with all the key parties involved in this situation, not just Southern Cross but the LGA, ADASS, the CQC and others. The precise situation in which we find ourselves with Southern Cross is unlikely to arise again because my understanding is that the business model adopted by Southern Cross is unique. Nevertheless, every privately operated residential care home business will, no doubt, have its own level of business risk, whatever that may be-either slight or something rather less slight. However, the alternative that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, seemed to desire was a return to the state provision of care homes. The noble Lord is shaking his head, and I am glad of that, because I think neither his party when in government, nor certainly ours, would wish that on the public. I think that all of us believe in choice for the individual, and this is what the current market provides. Nevertheless, there are risks.
	The noble Baroness asked about hospitals. To the extent that NHS care is delivered in independent settings, a business risk is inevitably associated with that. However, we are clear in the Health and Social Care Bill that there needs to be a system whereby essential services are protected for the benefit of patients. When the Bill reaches us, we will no doubt debate those provisions.

Baroness Wall of New Barnet: I am sure that the noble Earl will be assured that my noble friend did not imply or say what the noble Earl thought he said. It is really important for us to focus on the business side of this issue and the economics of how it is run. The noble Earl is absolutely right to say that there is no complaint at all-in fact, all the carers of residents in those homes are distressed because they may be moved from somewhere that has taken care of their people. It is important, therefore, that none of us loses sight of the real issue-the care of these people, which has been good. Otherwise, the home would be in a very different state and, God forbid, we would be having a very different discussion if the issue was the care of the residents rather than the economics of running the home.
	How deeply is the Care Quality Commission involved in this? My own trust has been talking to the CQC because, as the noble Earl will know, there are knock-on effects for hospitals all around the country when those homes are under threat, and on what might happen to elderly people who would normally be discharged from hospitals into those homes. We should all please remember-I am sure that the noble Earl is remembering-that the patients really matter in this, and we should ensure that we get them into safe places where they are looked after. The economics of this are very important, and I am not in any way dismissing that, but we need to measure that up against the care that has been provided for those people in Southern Cross homes, and, I hope, will continue to be provided. The care is valued. It is about the market that goes on out there, and any of us would be foolish to suggest that there is an alternative.

Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, and I am also clear about the position of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. She is of course right. Our first concern should be for the safety and welfare of residents. That is why, as I said earlier, some time ago we asked the Care Quality Commission to engage in close discussion with Southern Cross when the news of the impending redundancies was made public. We did that precisely to ensure that standards would not be compromised. My understanding is that there are no concerns on that front. Southern Cross has, in that sense, behaved impeccably in ensuring that residents have not suffered, other than from the inevitable uncertainty that the publicity over this matter has generated. Going forward, the principles that the noble Baroness has articulated are absolutely right. However, she would agree with me-as I think she did-that questions need to be asked about the financial models adopted by care homes or, indeed, by any independent business providing public services.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Were we not told after Jon Manel of the BBC's exposure of what was going on in care homes in 2008 that lessons would be learnt and that there would be a review; and was not an inquiry set up by the department at the request of the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton? Were we not given assurances that that would not happen again? Is not the reality that these reviews and statements about lessons to be learnt all end up in the long grass, because this area of care is basically out of control?

Earl Howe: I do not agree with the noble Lord that this area of care is out of control. The situation that arose at the time to which the noble Lord refers was of quite a different nature from the one we are looking at at the moment. As I recall, it was about the quality of care delivered in particular care homes. We now have the CQC, which is responsible for policing quality of care across the NHS and social care. The previous Government put that arrangement in place. We are content with it. We think that the arrangements are robust. The CQC does very good work.
	Of course, with the best will in the world, mistakes occur. One can easily point the finger at the CQC. As I said, in the case of Winterbourne View, that would be an easy but unfair thing to do. All that the CQC can be expected to do is to take a snapshot at any given moment of what it sees and hears. When I say that lessons need to be learnt, I reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that my counterpart in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is considering the lessons to be learnt about the business models that apply not just to the care home sector but generically where public services are provided.

Regulatory and Banking Reform
	 — 
	Statement

Lord Sassoon: My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The Statement is as follows.
	"It is now well known that the tripartite system set up by the previous Government failed spectacularly in its mission to maintain stability. The decision to divide responsibility for assessing systemic financial risks between three institutions meant that in reality no one took responsibility. The crisis dramatically exposed this flaw and cost the taxpayer a vast amount of money.
	We cannot allow another crisis such as the one we have just witnessed. Shortly after taking office, we set in train a consultation on reforming our system of financial regulation. Today, after two extensive rounds of consultation, I am presenting to the House a White Paper, including draft legislation, setting out the blueprint for a completely new system of regulation. Let me summarise the main proposals.
	A permanent financial policy committee will be established inside the Bank of England. Its job will be to monitor overall risks in the financial system, identify bubbles as they develop, spot dangerous interconnections and stop excessive levels of leverage before it is too late. It has already started operating on an interim basis and is having its first formal meeting today. Subject to legislative progress, the permanent body will be in place by the end of next year.
	We will abolish the Financial Services Authority in its current form and transfer its significant prudential functions to a new prudential regulatory authority that will sit in the Bank of England. The prudential regulatory authority will focus on microprudential regulation. It will bring judgment to the vital task of regulating the soundness of individual firms that manage risk on their balance sheet, particularly banks and insurance companies. But we recognise, of course, that these types of firms engage in very different types of business, which is why we propose to provide the PRA with a specific statutory objective for its insurance responsibilities.
	We are bringing a new approach to protecting consumers. A new financial conduct authority will oversee the conduct of financial services firms, the operation of markets and the protection of consumers, with new powers to ban the sale of toxic products. I can confirm that as an integral part of its mission to secure better outcomes for consumers and investors, this authority will also have a new duty to promote competition. Judgment, discretion and proactive intervention will be the hallmark of our new regulators.
	We are bringing forward this draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, for which a Joint Committee of both Houses will shortly be convened. We are seeking valuable input from Members on both sides of this House. It is in all our interests to get this right.
	Last year we also established under Sir John Vickers an Independent Commission on Banking, to resolve the debate around the structure of the banking sector in the UK. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Sir John and his fellow commissioners for the excellent job they are doing.
	The commission's interim report put forward two particularly important proposals: bail in, not bail out, so that private investors, not taxpayers, bear the losses when things go wrong; and a ring-fence around better capitalised high street banks to make them safer and protect their vital services to the economy if things do go wrong. I can confirm that the Government agree in principle with both these proposals.
	Of course, we will await the commission's final report, but I can tell the House that any reforms will need to meet the following principles: all banks should be allowed to fail safely without affecting vital banking services, without imposing costs on the taxpayer, through reforms that are applicable across our whole banking industry and in a manner consistent with EU and international law. I can also confirm today that we welcome the commission's recommendations on increasing competition in retail banking and we are working closely with them to achieve this aim.
	We are also taking the first steps towards normalising the Government's involvement in the financial sector. One legacy of the crisis is that today's taxpayers have a direct interest in several banks through large-scale guarantees and shareholdings. We do not believe the Government should be a long-term investor in financial institutions. It will take some time, possibly several years, before we can make a complete exit from our investments in the banks.
	Today I can confirm the start of that process. On the advice of UK Financial Investments, we have decided to launch a sale process for Northern Rock. This follows extensive work over the past three months to consider potential options for returning Northern Rock to the private sector, while generating the best possible taxpayer value. The sale process will be open and transparent and in line with state aid rules. I have already written to the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on mutuals to reassure him that any interested parties can bid for it, including mutuals. This reaffirms the Government's commitment to actively promoting the mutuals sectors. This does not mean that other options to return Northern Rock plc to the private sector have been ruled out. However, I believe that at this point in time a sale process is most promising.
	I also want to make the House aware that, following an application by the Bank of England to the High Court today, Southsea Mortgage and Investment Company Ltd, a very small bank, has been placed into the bank insolvency procedure. This follows a decision by the FSA that Southsea no longer satisfied the FSA's threshold conditions for operating as a deposit-taker. As such, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme has been triggered and eligible depositors with balances up to the limit of £85,000 are safeguarded. Eligible depositors with amounts in excess of the insured limit of £85,000 may be entitled to receive a share of their savings above this limit as part of the insolvency process.
	Finally, I would like to update the House on the ongoing negotiations on international financial regulation. When I was in Brussels yesterday, my message was clear. We must learn the lessons of the crisis and create the foundations for stable and sustainable growth without fragmenting global markets. That is why global standards are strongly in our national interest. Much of the debate has focused on the implementation of the Basel III accord and we have been busy making the case for implementing it in full right around the world, including here in Europe. Last week's IMF assessment supported our arguments for minimum standards here in the EU, with discretion for national authorities to increase them where necessary.
	When the coalition Government came into office, questions were asked about the future of banking and regulation, but they had not been answered. It has been our job to resolve them. Our goal should be a new settlement between our financial system and the British people-a new settlement where the banks support the people, instead of the people bailing out the banks. This Statement today sets out the progress we have made towards building this new settlement and the actions we are taking to complete it".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, for repeating the Statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in another place. The Financial Secretary begins by commenting that the tripartite regulatory system failed. That is obviously true, and indeed a variety of other regulatory structures around the world also failed. In order to help us to establish a clear historical time line to understand what actually happened, will the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, tell the House in which speeches prior to 2008 the Financial Secretary, the Chancellor or the noble Lord himself called for a tightening of regulation? Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
	Continuing the theme of the rewriting of history, at the end of the Statement the Financial Secretary states that when the coalition Government came into office, questions were asked about the future of banking and regulation, but they had not been answered. I remind the noble Lord that domestically the most important road map for reform-the Turner review-was published in February 2009, and that the G20 conference that set the framework for international reform was held in September 2009. Far from there being no answers, most of the economic and financial analysis on which the Government's proposals today are based was done before the election.
	I turn to more substantial matters. The Statement fails to make it clear whether the financial policy committee will have any powers. What will it actually be able to do? Will it, for example, have the power to impose leverage collars or loan-to-value ratios to calm a bubble? Will it have the power to impose pro-cyclical levies on banks? Given that the committee will be the focus of macroprudential regulation, what will its relationship be to the more general formation of macroeconomic policy? It is now obvious to everyone that fiscal policy can be a source of macroprudential risk, so what role, if any, will the committee have in the formulation of fiscal policy, even, let us say, at an advisory level?
	The Financial Secretary states very emphatically that the prudential regulatory authority will focus on microprudential regulation. Does not this division between microprudential and macroprudential issues repeat the institutional rigidities and errors of the past? Given that the regulation of individual firms will require macro issues to be taken into account, what exactly is the difference between the risks that create macroprudential problems and those that create microprudential problems, and how will anyone know in advance of a crisis which is which?
	The Financial Secretary states that the financial conduct authority will have new powers to ban the sale of toxic products. This really is very odd. Since in the recent crisis the toxicity of products was related to the macroprudential risks they created, how is this power invested in the arm's-length FCA to be related to the management of macro risk by the Bank of England?
	I now turn to the future structure of the banking industry and the work programme of the Independent Commission on Banking, as covered in the Statement. First, we on this side heartily endorse the principles for reform set out in the Financial Secretary's Statement. We would, however, add a further principle: that the failure of a bank should not destabilise the real economy.
	Secondly, the Statement endorses in principle the ICB proposition that there should be a ring-fence around high street banks. That sounds sensible and clear until one asks: what exactly is a high street bank? Does the Financial Secretary refer to banks that base their business only on high street deposits-the deposits of households and firms? Or, would it be acceptable for high street banks to have interbank lending, repos and other wholesale funds on the liability side of their balance sheet, given that it was the failure of these markets in commercial paper that was a major factor in the financial crisis? Will that ring-fencing apply to all banks offering retail services in the UK, whether they are British companies, subsidiaries of foreign companies or branches of foreign companies? Will it also apply to banks passported into the UK from other EU jurisdictions?
	We welcome the possibility that Northern Rock may be returned to the private sector as a mutual. I echo the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, on Monday: in the model chosen for the privatisation of Northern Rock what weight will be given to the implications for future financial stability? Would not mutualisation be an important buttress of stability?
	In the Statement the Financial Secretary also voices his support for the Basel III accord. As the noble Lord will be aware, at the centre of that accord is the increase in the minimum capital that banks are required to hold relative to risk-weighted assets. Is the noble Lord aware that the capitalisation of the banks in Ireland prior to the crisis exceeded the new limits proposed in Basel III? Why are the Government supporting such a feeble standard?
	We welcome the publication of the White Paper and the draft Bill, and indeed the Government's agreement to pre-legislative scrutiny. We also note that many of the institutional structures to be given legal legitimacy by the Bill are already in place. There was a reference to the financial policy committee meeting today. Given that the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the predecessor of the Financial Services and Markets Act, underwent major changes, including institutional changes after the pre-legislative scrutiny by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is not the establishment of these structures, prior even to a Second Reading in another place, somewhat premature?

Lord Sassoon: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, first, for making a clear admission that the tripartite system failed and therefore something needed to be done about it, and, secondly, for welcoming various of the other aspects of what we are doing, including our approach to bank failure and pre-legislative scrutiny. However, the fact that he starts with bracketing together a recognition of the failure of the tripartite system and then questioning the approach taken by my right honourable friend the Chancellor and others of us who are now in the Treasury and what we did in the past is remarkable. We got on to the case in opposition immediately the crisis hit and started to work practically on learning the lessons.
	I completely agree with the noble Lord that fine work of analysis was done by the noble Lord, Lord Turner, particularly in his FSA report, and others, but the previous Government had a couple of years in which they signally failed. If they recognised the failure of the tripartite system, they certainly did not tell us then. They had two years in which they could have established an independent commission to look at banking. They could have done the work to analyse what would be a better system but they did none of that. Instead, my right honourable friend the Chancellor, when in opposition commissioned work from people, including myself. We did a considerable amount of work that put us in a good position, so that when we got into office we launched the rounds of consultation that have led to today's White Paper. It is not therefore a question of hindsight being a fine thing but of getting on, learning the lessons and starting down the track of implementing a better system.
	The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, went on to question the powers of the FPC. I appreciate that the White Paper is a long document to have absorbed in the past few hours and point to the discussion in it about the possible tools and powers that the FPC may have. In order to move forward on that, we have asked the FPC to come forward with proposals in the next few months-I expect them in the third quarter-for the tools and powers that it believes will be necessary and appropriate to enable it to carry out its function. For the avoidance of all doubt, I will confirm that the FPC will have no role in setting fiscal policy.
	The noble Lord then raised the issue of macroprudential and microprudential risks. I thought that his analysis was interesting. Clearly there is a very difficult issue about where the micro and macro areas stop and start and how they relate to each other, which goes to the heart of the problem with the tripartite arrangement. The Bank of England was clearly responsible for analysis of the macro risks but was not given by the previous Government the tools to deal with the consequences of the problems that it found. On the other hand, the Financial Services Authority was responsible for the micro risks-and never the twain shall meet. I am surprised that the noble Lord does not give the Government credit for the fact that we have brought the macro and micro together under the umbrella of the Bank of England precisely to address the problem that he identifies.
	The noble Lord mentioned toxic products. Some of these may have been related to macro factors, but one has only to look at the scandal of PPI-not to mention a string of other products wheeled out by the financial services sector over the past few years-to understand that toxic products are most often generated at firm level, and it is appropriate that the conduct authority should have powers to ban them.
	The noble Lord went on to ask about the definition of the ring fence. The question of the ring fence should be left to the appropriate experts. The Independent Commission on Banking, chaired by Sir John Vickers, will in the second phase of its work focus on precisely how the ring fence will work; that is what it is doing at the moment. On the specific question of whether the ring fence will apply to EU-passported banks, the FSA's and in future the PRA's full rules will apply only to banks headquartered in the UK. EU bank branches that are passported into the UK have as their lead authority the EU home regulation, not the UK host regulation: therefore, any ICB proposals would be implemented consistent with EU law. That is one of the principles enshrined in my honourable friend's Statement.
	The question of Northern Rock was raised. As I said, we want to see a competition and are required under state aid rules to have one that is fair and open to all parties. We would welcome mutuals participating in that bidding process. As to whether a mutual outcome would be a greater buttress of stability, that is open to question. Any bidder for Northern Rock or participant in our banking system needs to demonstrate a level of financial stability that meets the regulatory requirements. I think one should not draw a distinction between different categories of institution on that basis.
	The last point raised by the noble Lord was about Basel III and the Government's support for the higher capital requirements under it, I think pointing out that the capitalisation of the Irish banks exceeded the Basel III limits. That enables me to confirm that the Government's position on this is that for too-big-to-fail banks a capital buffer above Basel III is appropriate to ensure their resilience.

Baroness Kramer: My Lords, I must congratulate the Government on their courage in recognising not just the need to reform regulation and the regulatory system, which certainly was not fit for purpose, but to go beyond that to recognise the need to restructure the banking industry in the teeth of a lot of opposition from the industry itself, although a stronger case certainly needs to be made fully to convince all of us that ring fencing is a better strategy than division of the banks.
	I shall ask the Minister two questions arising out of today. He talked a moment ago about a new regulatory system bringing together micro and macro, which is what we all wish to see, but he will be aware of the remarks made today by the Governor of the Bank of England, which were quoted in the Daily Telegraph, about reducing the burden of routine collection and focusing on the major risks to the system. He will know that the system collapsed in large part because securitisation and derivatives were piled on top of mortgage loans that were faulty and very often fraudulent. It was the failure to see the link between the micro and the macrosystemic that led to the crisis that we saw. Will he make sure that we do not now have a swing back in the other direction in regulation to systemic ignoring the relevance of the micro?
	On the return of banks to private ownership, which is something we all wish to see, will he give some assurances that serious consideration will be given to schemes such as that proposed by my colleague Stephen Williams, MP for Bristol West, which would involve a distribution of shares in part to the public in order that they may gain some of the upside? The Treasury would still receive its funding, but on a deferred basis. Would he agree that UK Financial Investments, being a very silo organisation, is not likely to appreciate the potential benefits of that much wider engagement with the public, sharing upside reward with people who have suffered from the crisis?

Lord Sassoon: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Kramer for her general support for what we are doing and her recognition of how far the Government have already gone in pushing forward with the structural and regulatory reforms. On the micro/macro link, I refer noble Lords to the full, and very interesting, remarks by the Governor last night at the Mansion House because he talked with great coherence and good sense about what the failure of the previous regulatory regime was, which was to collect a huge amount of detailed data that it was unable to analyse to draw out the conclusions.
	However, in the new world, experienced bank supervisors are needed who are able to analyse and draw out the picture, which was never difficult-whether it was on securitisation or on a lot of other matters or funding models-before the crisis. There should be meaningful discussions with the banks in terms of the individual banks that they supervise about what this translates to in terms of the exposure of the individual bank's business model. If my noble friend was to read the Governor's full remarks, the Bank is absolutely where she would like it to be on its thinking on this. I got no sense of swing-back in it.
	On ownership of the banks, we are well aware of the proposals that have come in, including that from Stephen Williams on mass retail participation. We and UKFI are actively considering mass retail participation as we think ahead to returning the banks into the private sector, which of course is not the same thing. A subset of it would be distributing the banks' shares for free or on some other basis, which raises value-for-money considerations and quite a lot of technical market considerations. But I can reassure my noble friend that all these proposals will be given due consideration.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I have here a letter from Unite the Union representing the workforce at Northern Rock. As can well be imagined, the workforce is extremely concerned about its future. It points out that at its height Northern Rock had 6,500 employees. It also ran the Northern Rock Foundation with £200 million of investment in the area. Those in the workforce are concerned not only about their own jobs but about the general impact on the situation in the north-east where there is a very high level of unemployment and where people have great difficulty in getting alternative work. In any situation in regard to restructurings and so on, it should be a major concern for the Government to ensure that whatever decisions are taken do not worsen the unemployment situation in the area. Everything possible should be done to ensure that employment is kept at a reasonable level. As regards Northern Rock, that does not seem to be the situation.
	I am very glad that my noble friend on the Front Bench raised mutualisation because it seemed to me that that is a way in which it might be possible to maintain a much higher level of employment in the area. It is very important to bear in mind concern not just about the financial stability, important though that is, but what happens to employment in the area and the general standing in the area of not only the financial situation but of the economic situation generally.

Lord Sassoon: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, because these considerations will be ones which prospective bidders for Northern Rock will be asked to address in their bids. Of course, the Government are very mindful of the situation in the north-east and its dependence on the public sector in particular. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Bates is not here today because I am always refreshed by his reminder to the House that a lot of vibrant new business is being generated in the north-east. But I very much recognise, as do the Government, the problems and the bidders will be asked to make a lot of these things clear when they come forward with proposals.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I welcome overall this Statement and the speech last night made by the Chancellor on related matters. In many ways, the Chancellor's speech spelt out what he intended rather more clearly than was done in the Statement today. However, I am very glad that he is sticking to his plan A for the economy, which was so clearly endorsed by the IMF recently. In response to the question of whether it was time to adjust macroeconomic policies, it gave the clearest possible answer-no.
	As to regulation, it must be right that the Chancellor is scrapping the tripartite agreement which had such disastrous consequences. The position was not quite clear from my noble friend's reading of the earlier Statement. My understanding is that what is being proposed is what the IMF calls a triple peak arrangement; that is, a new prudential regulator, a new financial conduct authority and a new macroprudential authority. Am I right in thinking that there are three bodies rather than two?
	I turn to the other question in relation to regulation and to the question of ring-fencing. Personally, I would have preferred the more radical solution of complete separation. I realise the arguments about cost of capital, competition and so on, but after all, American banks did survive quite successfully for a long time under the Glass-Steagall arrangements. But when we come to the question of ring-fencing between the investment part of a bank and its retail part, I am not clear whether it is intended that the ring fence should have holes in it or whether there is to be a complete ban on capital flowing from one side of the ring fence to the other. There seems to be some discussion at the moment which suggests that the ring fence would not be as solid as perhaps some of us would wish it to be.
	The other thing that is not clear about whether something is too big to fail is whether, following the establishment of the ring fence, the part of the bank concerned with investment banking, no matter how large, would be allowed to fail, but the retail side would not. In other words, there would be an absolute guarantee that the retail part of a bank would be protected by the Government. If that is so, it raises very serious questions of moral hazard. The extent to which the retail banking section has not been devoid of the recent problems arising from risk-taking creates a real problem. Obviously, we will be much clearer about this when we see the White Paper and the pre-legislative scrutiny which takes place. But perhaps my noble friend would clarify precisely what is meant by ring-fencing in this context.

Lord Sassoon: My noble friend's first question was about whether this is twin peaks, triple peaks or whatever. I have always found that a somewhat stale way to analyse the issue because over the past decade constant comparisons were being made between single peaks, twin peaks and so on, so I am reluctant to be drawn into characterising what we are now proposing as any number of peaks. All I can say is that it is emphatically not a triple-peak solution in that the macroprudential and the micro in the PRA are going to be in one body in the Bank of England. So although characterising it as twin peaks is closer to the models that have been analysed by academics and others over the last few years, it gets us back to language that I am not sure is entirely helpful. However, it is certainly not a triple-peak solution.
	On the questions around separation and permeability of the ring-fence, the Government will be guided by the independent commission's final report. But it is also important to recognise what the ICB's interim report did and did not say. To put it simply, it certainly was not a division between retail and investment banking. The commission acknowledged that a balance has to be struck between imposing very high costs on an important sector and the degree of safety. The point of firewalling is not to eliminate all risk, but to minimise the risk and cost to the taxpayer should a bank fail. The ICB is now focused on these issues between now and September. The principal issues to be looked at by the Government and the Bank of England will be the powers to manage the collapse of any investment bank, were that to happen in the future. As I hope was clear from my honourable friend's Statement, one of the principles in establishing the ring-fence is to make sure that the taxpayer is not exposed on either side of it. Therefore, getting rid of the risk of moral hazard is at the centre of the construct that we are looking to put in place.

Lord Hollick: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Government's endorsement of the requirement for high-street banks to better capitalised. However, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the efficacy and efficiency of ring-fencing, as opposed to total separation. As the Minister will know from his time in the City, banking groups are funded and the Treasury is run on a group basis. To separate the groups and deal with permeability will be extremely difficult. A legal separation would reduce, if not eliminate, the risk of inter-group contagion. It would also allow the risks of the high-street bank and the investment bank-or whatever the Minister chooses to call it-to be properly priced. This would benefit the ordinary consumer. The lower cost of borrowing that a better capitalised high-street bank paid could then be passed on to the borrower.
	The second issue that arises on this is, again, a welcome commitment to apply this right across the banking industry. However, many of our banks are headquartered in other countries. Have the Government had any discussions with the Governments of, for instance, the United States and Spain? Do they share the Government's enthusiasm for this approach? Will the Government also ensure that the lead regulator-whether in the United States or in Spain-will follow the same path?

Lord Sassoon: My Lords, there are many questions wrapped up in all that. I am conscious that we have four minutes to go. I repeat myself, but we have set up the independent commission with a suitable group of experts and resourced with a secretariat that is now grappling with precisely these questions. Legal separation has, in the history of the US and Glass-Steagall, proved itself to be an incomplete answer to this. We have to find the best answer. We have set out the Government's perspective, which is to endorse the principle, and set down the standards by which we shall judge the solution that the commission comes up with. I am sure it will listen to the ideas that are put forward here this afternoon, as well as to all the other submissions that it receives. It is not an easy challenge for the commission, but it is made up of the best people to carry it out.
	On the international side, one of the standards by which the Government will judge the solution and decide whether to endorse it is compatibility with the international rules. That is the minimum. That is not what the noble Lord went on to say. As to whether other people will come with us, all I can say is that there has been a high degree of interest in what the commission has come up with in its interim report. People around the world are studying it. We shall see in time whether they will follow it. All I know is that the eyes of the world are very much on the continuing work of the commission.

Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I draw attention to a confusing passage in the Statement, which makes the text about micro and macro more difficult to understand. It says:
	"The Prudential Regulatory Authority will focus on microprudential regulation. It will bring judgment to the vital task of regulating the soundness of individual firms".
	However, that is not a task for regulation; it is a task for supervision, which is not mentioned in the Statement and caused some confusion in earlier business on these matters. I shall not say this at any length but supervision is a separate process, which got slightly lost under the old system. We need to be careful that these are two separate things, which are complementary and sometimes overlap, but nevertheless are not the same. The text on that needs another look.

Lord Sassoon: I am grateful to my noble friend because this is a technical but very important area. He is completely right that there is a fundamental distinction between supervision and regulation and often texts can be loose on this. I hope that when he has a chance to read the White Paper he will see that there is extensive discussion of these areas. I refer him to the interesting remarks of the governor last night about the approach to supervision which he intends the Bank and the PRA under it to adopt in the new world, and that that should be a very different approach to supervision from what we have seen recently with the FSA. I take my noble friend's points to heart, but the short text of the announcement does not give the full flavour that lies behind it.

Lord Maples: I have a couple of quick points on the ring-fencing proposal. Does what the Chancellor said last night mean that we have finally ruled out the idea of a complete split between investment banking and commercial banking? Secondly, does the Minister agree that for ring-fencing to work, the ring-fenced commercial or high-street bank will need a strong degree of independence on its board of directors to enable it to stand up to the banking group of which it is a part?
	Thirdly, the Minister's point about how many holes there are or how permeable the ring-fence is is important because presumably the purpose of the ring-fencing is to stop the investment banks' liabilities appearing on the commercial banks' balance sheets as assets, or for that matter the liability of any other investment bank. If that permeability is there at all, investment bankers will find some way of using the commercial banks' balance sheets to their advantage.

Lord Sassoon: My noble friend makes some important points, which the independent commission has in the forefront of its thinking to resolve over the next few months. It is not that we have ruled out everything but that we have set up an independent commission. It came up with the ring-fencing proposal in its interim report and that is what my right honourable friend the Chancellor has endorsed, subject to the caveats included in the Statement. My noble friend's points about how this is worked out in detail are some of the absolute correct ones.

Armed Forces Bill
	 — 
	First Reading

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
	 — 
	Committee (6th Day) (Continued)

Clause 142 : Demonstrations in vicinity of Parliament: repeal of SOCPA 2005 provisions
	Amendment 244ZZA
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	244ZZA: Clause 142, page 96, line 32, leave out subsection (2)

Baroness Hamwee: This amendment takes us to the issues relating to Parliament Square. I start with an apology. Like many other noble Lords, I had thought that we would be a little further advanced by this time and I am committed to a speaking engagement, fortunately as near as Portcullis House. However, it means that I will not be here for the whole of the debate on this part of the Bill, about which I am extremely sad. The future of Parliament Square is an issue dear to my heart. However, I am delighted to see the repeal of what I have always thought of as offensive provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act.
	I have no need to rehearse at length why it is so important that demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament should not be blocked. Indeed, I think that they should be facilitated. I was heartened, too, by a discussion that I had with the Hansard Society recently about the work that it is doing to promote better co-ordination of the various institutions around Parliament Square that are part of our democracy. That includes not just Parliament but the Supreme Court and Westminster Abbey. We could all operate better together for the benefit of tourists, of course, but more particularly for our own citizens. I do not want to see the re-enactment in the Bill of what I have described as offensive provisions for a narrower area-in other words, not to halfway up Whitehall and so on, but for Parliament Square itself.
	Maybe it is important to rehearse the importance of the rights to peaceful protest and assembly, which are integral to our democracy. Any interference in them must be proportionate as it is a matter of human rights. The Government are held to account through a number of mechanisms. Making views clear to both government and Parliament, whose job is partly to hold government to account, is integral to that. This is all wrapped up with the right of free speech. I have said to your Lordships before that it does us as parliamentarians no harm to be confronted, in a physically non-confrontational way, with other people's views. Sometimes those views are expressed vocally, though we may not hear so much of that at this end of the building. We tend to hear more noise from Old Palace Yard, which I think is outside the area covered by these provisions. The loudest is often the hymn-singing that is sometimes organised there by religious groups. As I said, it is not appropriate to re-enact the provisions for a narrower area, nor to give aesthetic considerations -tidying up the square-more weight than considerations based on democracy.
	What is there about Parliament Square that needs more protection than is available through the Public Order Act 1986? That is at the heart of the questions in this group and on this part of the Bill. The Joint Committee on Human Rights report said that,
	"the right to protest is clearly not an absolute right".
	It can legitimately be regulated but,
	"the regulation of protest should not represent a hidden obstacle to the freedom of assembly".
	At paragraph 1.16, the committee said:
	"the proposed offences must be justified by the Government as necessary to meet a legitimate aim and as proportionate to the proposed interference with the rights protected by Articles 10 and 11 ECHR, the right to freedom of expression and assembly".
	It said, I thought rather generously, that,
	"the Explanatory Notes explain in very broad terms the Government's view that these provisions are proportionate".
	I found it harder to detect justification in the Explanatory Notes. That is why I am opposing the question that these other clauses, beside Clause 142, should stand part of the Bill. That will save others from perhaps wondering in my absence why I am opposing that the clauses stand part. I know that my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who will move the amendments that I cannot, and who has a much longer track record of standing up for these matters than I do, will speak to them. I will therefore also be opposing that some of the other clauses stand part.
	On Clause 142, I am troubled by subsection (2) which provides that public assemblies will come within the Public Order Act, including,
	"public assemblies which started, or were being organised, before this section comes into force".
	This may not be retrospective in a technical sense but I wonder what it means. Section 14 of the 1986 Act provides that a police officer can only give directions or impose conditions prospectively. I have been wondering whether Clause 142(2) means that the directions bite only from when they are given. This is of course relevant to whether there is an offence as regards the past, or whether the offence is committed maybe in respect of a continuing activity but only from the point of a direction that is not obeyed. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I shall intervene for a few moments. We are often told that scrutiny in the Lords is better than that in the Commons, but this is a section of the Bill that I would have liked to have talked on, under a number of amendments, and due to pressure of time and the fact that we will be going late this evening we will not have the opportunity. This section of the Bill will not be subject to the level of scrutiny that I believe it deserves.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I follow that by saying that this is a particularly important section of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Hamwee laid out a little bit of the history of this legislation. Last time, with the SOCPA provisions, which are now being repealed, Parliament got it very wrong-although it got it wrong in a panic, as a reaction to terrorism. There are still things in the Bill that are deeply worrying, which is why it merits scrutiny. Having said that, I welcome the fact that the Government are repealing the SOCPA clauses.
	In speaking to Amendment 244ZZA, I shall give an example of one thing that should really worry us. My amendment suggests that we should remove from the Bill the words "or is about to". If somebody is doing a prohibited activity, it is quite plain that the police can give them a direction to stop them doing it. However, how will the police know that the person is about to do a prohibited activity? Is the policeman a mind reader? Can he or she guess what that person is about to do? There is something slightly more worrying behind these words. It disguises what we now have in this country-that is, two classes of citizen. The vast majority of the country do not fall into this class, but there is a second bunch of people who are classed as domestic extremists. Some of them may be in your Lordships' House, because to be a domestic extremist, for which there is no legal definition, you simply have to be somebody whom the police think has regularly gone on protests. I do not know the rest of the criteria that the police use to judge, and I do not believe that the Home Office is very aware of them, because when I asked a series of Written Questions about this to the Minister's predecessor I was told that there is no legal definition. There is a database, and people can find out if they are on the database if they apply under the Freedom of Information Act. However, of course they would not know to apply, because most people would not suspect that they were on it.
	This year we have also had the issue of the somewhat out-of-control undercover surveillance of activists. I am very glad that HMIC is currently carrying out a review of operational accountability of undercover work of the national public order intelligence unit, but we have not had the results yet of that review.
	In addition, the Metropolitan police force has just acquired some suspect-mapping software called Geotime, which can take account of the activity done by domestic extremists in their everyday lives. For example, it can follow social networking when they use their sites, as well their mobile use, cash withdrawals and sat-nav use. The police can build up thus an entire picture of somebody who is not a criminal or somebody who has been convicted of anything but someone who is classed as a domestic extremist, for which, as I say, there is no legal definition. It is quite worrying. Those people, the domestic extremists, have not necessarily done anything criminal-nothing except to be known protesters and activists. In other words, they are people who might do something. That is what worries me about the wording,
	"or is about to do".
	What particularly concerns me is that if that class of person appears in Parliament Square, they will be given a direction not even to put their blanket down and not to do any of the things that could be classed as a prohibited activity and will be subject to a certain degree of judgment by the police. Why is this particularly important? It is important for all the reasons that my noble friend gave in introducing this group of amendments: Parliament Square is an iconic place in which to protest and to demonstrate. More than that, it is an extremely iconic place internationally.
	At a time when the rest of the world is seeing protests put down in incredibly violent ways, it is incumbent on us to make sure that, being a flagship of democracy, we can demonstrate freely-and that we, as the legislature, demonstrate that we take incredibly seriously the rights and freedoms of our citizens. I do not want to see in the Bill little weasel words such as,
	"or is about to do".
	We need this legislation to be as clear as possible and for the freedom to demonstrate to be as enabled as possible.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I spoke on this section of the Bill at Second Reading and I very much support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. If we have subsection (1) of Clause 142 in place, which re-establishes the Public Order Act 1986 as the ruling legislation, the rest of that clause/section is completely unnecessary. We can omit all that. If we have the 1986 Act, all subsequent legislation is not required, including Clause 143 and the rest of the provisions in this section.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, I have an amendment in this group but we agree with the repeal of the provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 relating to demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament. We also agree with the need for further proposals and for the use of the 1986 Public Order Act. The 2005 Act created a new offence of demonstrating without authorisation in what is described as a designated area, which was defined by order. That designated area had to be within 1 kilometre of Parliament Square. The use of loudspeakers in the designated area was also banned.
	However, that Act had unacceptable and unintended consequences on the right of some to protest and it soon raised concerns that the Act had not, in reality, struck the correct balance between the right to protest and the rights of people to go about their everyday business and for them to enjoy Parliament Square. A proposal to repeal the provisions of the 2005 Act was included in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. That proposal fell in the wash-up at the 2010 general election.
	In looking at the Government's proposals we have some questions to raise, simply to test whether they are likely to achieve their objectives. It would certainly be helpful if the Minister could define the problem that the Government feel that their proposals will address, and to define the harm that the Government are trying to deal with. The Government's proposals are, in many ways, similar to the provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act but they apply to a much smaller area, namely Parliament Square. How did the Government decide that Parliament Square should be the limit of the area to which their proposals should relate? Although he is not in his place, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, had amendments proposing, as I understand it, to include Abingdon Green. How would the situation be addressed if those protesting-the permanence of existing protests is an issue-moved just outside the area of Parliament Square?
	Do all the parties directly involved support the Government's proposals, including the Greater London Authority, Westminster City Council, the Metropolitan Police and indeed the House authorities here? Are there any areas of disagreement over the scope or the practicality of the proposals?
	We recognise that this is not an easy issue to resolve and that at the end of the day it will not just be about what is or is not in the Bill or any associated documentation. It is also about the degree of common sense-which, hopefully, will be considerable-that will be applied by all concerned in implementing the powers in the Bill.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, with nine clauses to deal with, worrying about a very small traffic island seems on the face of it to be a bit excessive, but I recognise that there is concern about the current situation in Parliament Square, the overkill that SOCPA applied to it and the question of what we put in place as we remove SOCPA. On the problem that we are trying to address and the harm that we are trying to remove, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the democracy encampment actually produced a considerable amount of harm to Parliament Square Garden. The garden, which should be there for the enjoyment of all, is still fenced off, as the noble Lord well knows, and not only tents but some semi-permanent structures now obstruct the pavement.
	I also recognise that this is part of a much wider discussion that we need to have, not just on the Bill but about the future of Parliament Square and of this part of Westminster as a whole. We had a useful debate on this on Friday, to which one or two Members here contributed. I recommend that those who were not here on Friday read Hansard. The debate raised some much wider questions to which I hope this Chamber will return, and which I hope that Members of both Houses and the authorities of the Abbey and the Supreme Court will address.

Lord Desai: Is there not anxiety on the part of the demonstrators that if they do not have permanent structures they will not be able to come back the next day and demonstrate? They are worried that if they demonstrate only during the day and then go home, the next day the police will say, "You can't come here". They are probably trying, in a clumsy way, to establish a right. I quite agree that these structures are ugly but that right is a crucial one to protect, and we should not worry too much about the structures.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, there is no evidence for what the noble Lord has just suggested. We are talking about proportionality in a whole range of different ways here. Parliament Square, Old Palace Yard and the area around them, as some noble Lords were saying on Friday, ought to be a great democratic space to be enjoyed by a large number of people, not just those who come to visit Parliament or those who wish to make their views well known-loudly known-but also tourists and those substantial numbers of people who pass through Parliament Square every day on their way to and from work. It is a transient population that is obstructed by those who wish to be here permanently. Some of those structures are semi-permanent. I think that the noble Lord will agree that if the Aldwych-to take where he and I used to work as an example-had a similarly permanent encampment, there would be real problems of obstruction of the footway and so on.
	The question that we are dealing with is: how best to arrange Parliament Square for the enjoyment, and the presence, of the maximum number of people under shared rules for all who come. This is a very large area. The intention of this part of the Bill is to give much greater clarity to protestors, public and the police as to what is and is not acceptable in Parliament Square. As I said on Friday, overnight protests and vigils are clearly one sort of acceptable behaviour. Being there for a year at a time-or, in the case of Brian Haw, several years-is a different sort of presence. It begins to obstruct the rights of others. I am sure that the noble Lord is familiar with John Stuart Mill and On Liberty, and the question of how one's liberty has not to obstruct the rights of others. The maximum number of people in the democracy encampment was, I think, nearly 150. Brian Haw's group has always been a mere handful. So we are trading off different rights. That is the purpose of this place.
	I therefore say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that scrutiny of this is taking place in a wider context, not simply today. We discussed this on Friday and there is, indeed, another Private Member's Bill. This will continue to be a large set of issues.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked whether the policeman was a mind-reader. No, certainly not. Before anyone can commit an offence under these provisions, they must first be issued with a direction to stop: a warning. It is acceptable to issue a warning to someone you see carrying their sleeping bag and various other things that they should not put it down and spend several nights on it. That is what is intended in this clause.
	The noble Baroness talks about fears of domestic extremists. I do not particularly want to go down that road beyond saying that I recall that when I once turned up to speak to the Campaign for the Accountability of US Bases in Britain at RAF Menwith Hill, it was remarkable how quickly the MoD policeman appeared to recognise who I was-my name and everything else. Perhaps I am on the list, too. We do not need to go too far into that for the moment.
	These amendments rightly test the replacement for SOCPA. The Government's view is that getting rid of SOCPA and replacing it with measures that existed before-as far as demonstrators are concerned, the previously operating Public Order Acts-is the right response. There is a trade-off between different users, as I have already said. However, there is a clear consensus on all sides of this Chamber after five years of debate that Parliament Square should be fully developed as a democratic space and that we should be discussing with the Palace authorities, the Abbey, the Supreme Court and others how to use it better. That discussion is rather wider than the Bill goes and needs to be continued elsewhere.
	The question of Abingdon Green was raised briefly. There are particular problems because Abingdon Green is private, not public, property. Noble Lords will be aware of the many subtleties of who is directly responsible for which bit of the various facilities around here. There are risks of hybridity if we apply this Bill to Abingdon Green. However, we understand the practical challenges in terms of applying these various remedies. The Government will therefore additionally discuss with the House authorities the benefits of moving an amendment on Report to make provision for a power of seizure to be attached to Royal Parks regulations, which apply to Abingdon Green, to support the position that we have taken for effective enforcement of GLA and Westminster City Council by-laws.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Suppose that there is a big demonstration in London with a couple of thousand people on Whitehall all marching down towards Parliament Square carrying sleeping bags. Suppose that it looks to a police officer that they may well want to spend the night somewhere in the vicinity of Parliament. It does not mean that they are going to do it every day, or every week or whatever; they are not going to put up tents or anything. What would happen in those circumstances? Would the police simply ignore it? Or would they somehow find some excuse under the proposed legislation to say, "We are warning you, you cannot do it". Then, if they breach that, an argument breaks out on the streets between the police and the demonstrators.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the noble Lord is enjoying asking a hypothetical question. As we know, the police operate through discretion and by consent. I remind him that the most hostile response I have had from the House when answering a question was when we discussed sessional orders and a number of his colleagues on the Benches opposite demanded that the police should clear space for their cars to enable them to drive through large demonstrations on their way to the House. I had to point out that the police operate by consent and occasionally do not wish to clear away thousands of demonstrators in order to ensure that noble Lords can drive in here. These are matters of judgment. We have to allow the police to operate by consent and to have confidence in them in that regard.
	We are working with Westminster City Council and the Greater London Authority to ensure that the relevant by-laws are strengthened to deal with disruptive activity in the wider area as well as in the central traffic island-as I call it-of Parliament Square itself. Our approach is aimed at targeting specific problems in a small area of Parliament Square and empowering the local authority to take action by giving it the ability to enforce relevant by-laws more effectively. Having reassured the Committee on that, and having encouraged it to continue the wider debate which we started on Friday about the future of Parliament Square, Old Palace Yard and the environs of this world heritage site, I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for their support. I keep coming back to my question about what is so special about Parliament Square, apart from the fact that we love it. Noble Lords may have noticed that although I oppose a great deal of the Bill, the encampment is a different matter. I am not entirely encouraged to hear that more by-laws may be applied, but there we go.
	I do not think that my noble friend answered my question about Clause 142(2). Can he answer the question about when it applies from-what I said was not technically retrospective-

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I apologise. That is very much a transitional arrangement to ensure that those who are already encamped there when the regulations are changed are not enabled to say that they do not apply to them. As I say, this is a transitional arrangement.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I understand that but since they will be committing an offence it may well be relevant to how long that offence has been committed for. If a direction is given on a Wednesday and they move the following Wednesday, they have committed an offence for a week, but they may have committed an offence for a year and a week if this measure is not technically retrospective, as I say. In terms of sanction, I would have thought that might be very relevant.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, that is a very fair point. I promise that I will go back to the department and will write to the noble Baroness about that.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 244ZZA withdrawn.
	Clause 142 agreed.
	Clause 143 : Controlled area of Parliament Square
	Amendments 244ZZAA and 244ZZAB not moved.
	Clause 143 agreed.
	Clause 144 : Prohibited activities in controlled area of Parliament Square
	Amendment 244ZZB
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	244ZZB: Clause 144, page 97, line 16, leave out "constable" and insert "senior police officer"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 244ZZB. I suppose for Hansard I should also say that I am also speaking to Amendments 244ZA, 244ZAC, 244ZCE, 244ZCF, 244ZDZA, 244ZDZB, 244ZEA, 244ZEB, 244ZEC, 244ZED, 244ZEE, 244ZEF, 244ZF, 244ZG and will oppose the Question that Clause 149 stand part.
	The first half of the amendments in this group would replace "constable" with "senior police officer" in Clauses 144, 145 and 146. Under Section 12 of the Public Order Act a "senior police officer" means the most senior in rank at the scene. I had wondered whether a constable was referred to because of the seizure powers that would be likely to be carried out in many instances by a relatively junior officer. However, the definition in my Amendment 244ZAC answers the point. The Public Order Act got it right by stating that the officer should be the most senior in rank at the scene. It is appropriate to ask the Government to justify why they have extended that right, only in the case of Parliament Square, to warranted officers below the most senior in rank at the scene.
	What worries me more are the powers to be extended beyond warranted officers; those powers are the subject of the remainder of the amendments in the group. Powers are to be given by the Bill to authorised officers, who will include employees of the GLA and Westminster City Council. Assistant Commissioner Lynne Owens of the Metropolitan Police gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the Commons to the effect that a broad discretionary power, vaguely drafted, is very difficult for a police officer to exercise in the middle of a protest. However, police officers have training and experience that are probably not available to authorised officers-council employees. I know that the duties of some council employees have been extended to some public order matters. There are wardens in Trafalgar Square, but their experience and duties are rather different from those expected under the Bill.
	The Bill grants powers of direction and seizure to an authorised officer, although, as a result of an amendment during proceedings on the Bill before it reached us, only a constable may use "reasonable force". I welcome that, of course, although I cannot quite envisage an authorised person-a council employee-seeking to seize an item, its owner holding on to it, and the authorised person saying something such as, "Oops, please wait right there while I get a constable". It is not clear that this is workable. It is better not to let those who are not warranted officers-warranted officers would be clearly identifiable-getting into the situation at all.
	This was something on which the Joint Committee on Human Rights made a number of comments, referring to the fact that the Minister had explained that the Government thought it would be bureaucratic and time-consuming to limit the direction-making power to police officers. I am well aware of how much work the Committee has to get through tonight, but I nevertheless want to read the JCHR's recommendation into the record. At paragraph 1.22 of the report the committee said:
	"We are concerned that the main reason given by the Minister ... is cost and administration saving".
	The committee continues:
	"We welcome the Minister's reassurance that these powers would be accompanied by guidance dealing with the appropriate exercise of discretion, identification and, in particular, with the reasonable use of force. However, no provision for these important safeguards is made on the face of the Bill. We regret the Government's reluctance to accept the need for further definition or statutory guidance. In the absence of statutory safeguards, we do not consider that the Government has provided adequate justification for the extension of this broad discretion to use such powers to local authority employees or contractors".
	It also states at paragraph 123:
	"We consider that the power to seize property is a power of the type which should generally be reserved to police personnel. Without further justification for seizure powers to extend to the local authority, we consider that this power should be limited to police personnel".
	I have cut down the amount that I was intending to read into the record. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Briefly, I agree heartily with my noble friend. It is not just a question of the seniority of the police officer, or whether they are warranted. My noble friend made some important points. Every inquiry into difficulties with protests recently has found that training is the issue. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House what provisions are in place under this Government for better training. The other place concluded after G20 that never again must untrained officers be placed in the front line of public protest. Nowhere is more front-line than Parliament Square. Inadequate training in the law, including human rights and public order powers, and a lack of clarity about the role and function of the forward intelligence teams, who are very much on the ground in the case of bigger public demonstrations, have been issues.
	I realise that since some of those comments were made, we have had the appointment of Sir Hugh Orde, who has brought some valuable experience in human rights training from Northern Ireland, which was recognised for integrating human rights training into general training. In human rights training, it is so important to get the balance between freedom of expression and that spilling over into something else.
	The previous Government rather sloped their shoulders with regard to the Home Office giving guidance on what training should be given and said that it was a matter for ACPO. Does the Home Office feel more strongly now that guidance on training, particularly in this regard, is a matter for the Home Office?

Lord Rosser: My Lords, I, too, will be brief. I have one amendment in the group. It relates to Clause 149 and deals with a very similar issue to that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: the definition given of "authorised officer". The clause states that it can be,
	"an employee of the responsible authority",
	or,
	"any other person who, under arrangements made with the responsible authority ... is so authorised for the purposes of this Part".
	All I want to add is that there are concerns, which have been eloquently expressed, about the powers that may be operated by someone other than a warranted police officer. I appreciate that the purpose of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is to ensure that it is a senior police officer.
	It will be very helpful in probing how the Government see the role of people other than warranted police officers under this part of the Bill, if the Minister could say what those authorised officers, as defined under the Bill, will be expected to do. What will an authorised officer not to be able to do that a warranted police officer could do under the Bill?
	Will the role of the authorised officers include policing demonstrations? How will people know that they are authorised officers under the terms of the Bill, since presumably they are not going to be dressed like police officers? Will it be obvious to all concerned? The Minister will know from evidence given in relation to this Bill that a view has been expressed in police circles that even clearly identifiable police officers may at times have difficulty in having their decisions and instructions accepted by those who are taking part in demonstrations-certainly in the heat of the moment. Surely that becomes even more difficult, depending on what the Minister has to say about the role of authorised officers, in relation to somebody who is not a police officer. Who will determine the suitability of these authorised officers for the role envisaged for them in this Bill, whatever that role may be?
	I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the situation and perhaps put minds at rest to some extent by what he has to say about the role and responsibilities he expects for these authorised officers who are not warranted police officers.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I intervene with another rather silly and naive question. I ask these questions because previously sometimes the most ludicrous things have happened and we find an article in the Evening Standard about action taken during one of these demonstrations which none of us comprehends. I want to ask a very simple question. Clause 146(1) says,
	"if it appears to that constable or officer that the item is being, or has been, used in connection with the commission of an offence under section 144".
	What about a deckchair? If a demonstrator turned up with a deckchair, who will decide whether the chair is for sitting upon or for sleeping upon? It is in those silly little areas that stupid decisions are taken that can lead to trouble in crowds, and subsequently to violence. It can be the small things that trigger a demonstration. This is why this whole area of the Bill should have been dealt with in far greater detail than it has been, and I simply ask what might appear a naive question but may well turn into an issue at some stage.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I have one illustration to add to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made so well. Who is to say that that person with the deckchair is even on the demonstration? One of the issues under the-happily to be repealed-SOCA provisions was that a person turning up in a T-shirt with a slogan saying "down with the war" might be taken to be on a demonstration but might be taken to be walking down the road in a T-shirt. The same thing would apply to things like deckchairs and blankets. Is a poncho something for sleeping in? It is a sort of blanket but your head can go through it. There are all sorts of issues that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is correct to raise that are going to be an immense matter for judgment.

Baroness Browning: My Lords, I will pick up on that last point about seizure before I begin to address the amendments. Police officers have different seizure powers that are largely based on their need to prevent crime or to seize evidence for a crime. People have mentioned deckchairs and other such items. Depending on the circumstances, it would be up to the police officer concerned to exercise their judgment about whether the item they were seizing was involved in either preventing crime or was evidence that might be used in a later prosecution.
	Amendment 244ZZB is premised on ensuring that only the most senior officer present at a scene can issue a direction to cease doing a prohibited activity. The Government fully appreciate the likely challenge to these provisions. We understand that the intention behind the amendment is to ensure that directions are properly issued by escalating authority to the senior officer present at the scene. On a point of principle, the Government are confident that police constables, regardless of rank, can issue appropriate directions. The Government support the return of discretion to police professionals.
	On a point of operational practicality, the package of reforms is designed to support early and proportionate interventions by the police to prevent an escalation of prohibited activities. However, the amendment would hinder that. Amendments conferring powers only on the senior officer present at the scene would have an adverse impact on practical enforcement on the ground, and on that basis I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
	The same arguments extend to Amendment 244ZA and other amendments in a similar vein. These amendments would remove powers from authorised officers of the Greater London Authority and Westminster City Council, about which I shall say more in a moment. The effectiveness of the new legal framework in Part 3 depends on a strong collaborative partnership approach between the Metropolitan Police, the Greater London Authority and Westminster City Council, with which the Home Office continues to work closely. It is necessary for all three agencies to be able to exercise some powers to avoid the type of situation in which, for example, a heritage warden employed by the Greater London Authority found himself unable to act or to deal with an individual until a police officer arrived to assist. Removing all powers from authorised officers would make the provisions in Part 3 unworkable.
	Clearly, members of the public must be able to identify authorised officers, understand what powers they have and their authority to use them, and what avenues of complaint are open to them. Greater London Authority heritage wardens carry identification and wear a uniform, as do authorised officers from Westminster City Council. We understand from both the GLA and Westminster City Council that to date there have been no issues with authorised officers' identification for the purposes of implementing by-laws. In addition, we are working with the relevant authorities to develop enforcement protocols and guidance on all these issues. I say to my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer that the Home Office has undertaken to provide the guidance and operation for this part of the Bill.
	The Government recognise the concerns generated by the powers that are available to authorised officers. That is why, as noble Lords may know, we have listened to concerns raised in the other place and have decided to remove the power to use reasonable force from authorised officers. However, the amendments would take away the powers of authorised officers to deal with even the most routine cases. I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments, which would make the provision in Part 3 unworkable. I hope they will feel that I have given them sufficient information to be more confident about how we intend to proceed with this part of the Bill.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, as has been said, seizure of items, as well as directions, will be very much a matter for judgment. My noble friend referred to training-an issue which was highlighted following past experience. We often talk about lessons learnt but do we ever actually learn the lessons or just talk about learning them? Exactly the same applies to the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours-it will be a matter for judgment. Overenthusiastic authorised officers may well escalate a problem rather than calm it down. The Minister refers to practical problems regarding the senior officer on the scene. I think that the issuing of directions will be less of an issue than one-to-one encounters. Therefore, again, I am not wholly persuaded.
	The GLA and Westminster say that there have been no problems with identification as regards their own officers in the past, but I wonder how much that has ever really been tested. I hear what the Minister says, so at this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 244ZZB withdrawn.
	Amendment 244ZA not moved.
	Amendment 244ZAA
	 Moved by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
	244ZAA: Clause 144, page 97, line 17, leave out ", or is about to do,"

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Committee will have noticed that I confused my ZZAAs before, which is why I moved that amendment earlier, for which I apologise. It is confusing when they are grouped like this.
	With the amendments in the name of my noble friend we move to whether the maximum fines for a summary conviction for an offence are proportionate under Clause 144 for failure to comply with the direction. We feel that it would be more proportionate to move from level 5 to level 3, which the JCHR comments on. It says that the Minister may wish to impose an effective deterrent, and that,
	"any punishment should be proportionate to the relevant offence. We do not consider that the Minister has explained why these offences differ significantly in impact or scale from other public order offences to justify a significantly greater degree of sanction. Without further justification the Bill should be amended to reduce the sanction from level 5 to level 3, in line with other similar public order offences".
	I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why this is considered worthy of such a significantly greater fine.
	Amendments 244ZCG and 244ZCH would reduce from 90 days to 14 days the period in which an activity is prohibited. Surely 90 days is really very extreme. Do we imagine that people will hang around for 14 days and try to repeat their activity? That is possible; it might be taken as part of the freedom to try your demonstration again. But similarly, the Joint Committee on Human Rights asks the Government for an explanation as to,
	"why they consider that it is appropriate for the Court to have such broad Order-making powers in connection with the proposed offences. In particular, the Minister should explain why lengthy Orders banning an individual from the vicinity of the controlled area around Parliament might be appropriate".
	Under the provisions of SOCPA part of the enormous offence caused by the clauses in that Bill was to do with banning individuals from an area. The Government need to proceed with extreme caution in this case. If individuals feel very strongly about something that is about to happen-I could quote, for example, the country going to war-of course, individuals will want to protest again and again. Is it really reasonable to prevent them doing so for three months just because they lay down to sleep although they were directed not to do so and contravened the Act? In any case, if they feel that strongly, why should they not do it again? I am not condoning people undertaking criminal activity but in this case, there is a very fine line between taking all individuals who protested and contravened something and banning them from appearing anywhere outside Parliament for 90 days. I do not feel that that is proportionate and I beg to move.

Lord Rosser: My Lords, I hope that I have the right group of amendments and will not start talking to something that I am not meant to be talking to. I will not add to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. Like her, I await the response with interest. I will raise the issue of guidance, which is covered by an amendment in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Dubs, who unfortunately is not in his place. I will not go through everything in the amendment, but will simply ask the Minister for clarification. There have been one or two references to other documentation or some form of guidance being issued. Can this be clarified now across the Dispatch Box? What part of the clauses relating to Parliament Square that we are discussing will be the subject of further guidance, perhaps to identify the meaning or interpretation that is to be put on some of the words that are used, in addition to the specific guidance referred to in the amendment? I ask this in the context of wanting to be clear on what areas the Government are going to issue guidance about as far as concerns the clauses in relation to Parliament Square.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I will say two things before I answer the particular points. First, we will come back to Parliament Square on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was unable to be here today and asked to withdraw his amendments and bring them back on Report. I very much hope that we will take further the whole issue of what we should do about the environs of Parliament. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that I have been thinking about when I first became conscious of how special this area is. It was when I was standing on top of the Henry VII chapel at the 1951 State Opening of Parliament. I was fascinated by the speed with which the Westminster City Council rubbish collectors picked up the horse manure as the Horse Guards rode past. My views on what is important have changed a little since then. The following year I sang in Westminster Hall at the lying in state of King George VI, and I have been involved in this area ever since. On Saturday night I will take part in a singing tour of the abbey, so I am probably among those who care most about the integrity of the area.
	Secondly, in answer to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I have the answer from the Box on Clause 142(2). If the provisions come into force on 1 May, for example, directions can be issued from 1 May onwards in relation to activity being engaged in from then, but they cannot include any activity that took place before then: there is no question of retrospectivity. Clause 142(2) ensures that ongoing encampments can be subject to directions once the provisions are commenced. I hope that that answers the point.
	I turn to the points made by my noble friend Lady Miller. The Government note that the issues raised are similar to those raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The issue is the appropriate maximum level of fine and whether it is commensurate with the potential damage and harms caused by the prohibited activities. Under the provisions, an individual commits an offence only when they fail to comply with a prior direction that provides an opportunity for them to desist from an activity before committing an offence. While the level of fine is higher than for some other comparable offences, this is balanced by the opportunity to desist from an activity before any criminal liability is attached. Level 5 is the absolute maximum penalty for this offence, and the courts have discretion in setting the level of fine in any case. The Government therefore consider that this maximum level of fine could be a proportionate response to an evidenced problem of serious and wilful disregard of local by-laws.
	My noble friend also raised the question of how one measures the strength of protest. Again, we have to balance the strength of protest that a very small number of people wish to assist in against access for a very large number of protestors. I suspect that my noble friend was, as I was, on the demonstration against the Iraq war. We spent a very long time marching-actually, shuffling because there were so many people there-along the Embankment, through Parliament Square and down Whitehall. I never got to Hyde Park. There were 2 million of us. If there had been a small number of people encamped in our path, we would not have been able to get even as far as we did. One has to think about the right to protest in a balanced way. Strength of protest there was expressed by the number of people, not by the fact that any of us wanted to stay overnight and camp for the next six weeks in Hyde Park or anywhere else.
	On the other amendment, the Government think that a maximum of 90 days strikes the right balance. Without any limit it would, for the person directed not to start a prohibited activity, be unclear and uncertain at what point a direction ceased to apply. With the limit of 14 days, we could, with some persistent resident protestors, so to speak, create a burden requiring unduly frequent renewal. Ninety days has been applied in a number of other areas for these sorts of orders.
	Subsections (1) and (2) of this clause provide that the direction to stop a prohibited activity may include a direction that the person does not start doing that activity again and that the direction continues in force for a period of time specified by the constable or authorised officer giving the direction.
	Then we come to the use of "varied" in Clause 145(6)(c). We thought it fair to give officers the ability to amend a direction given to enable them to deal with changing operational circumstances. This would mean the officer would be able to change the duration of the direction or to reinforce the direction taking account of changing circumstances. This amendment would curtail the rights of officers and reduce their ability to respond proportionately to changing circumstances, and we are all familiar with how difficult it can be to do so in large demonstrations.
	I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, formally moved the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but our sense on the amendment is that he was providing detailed guidance of the sort that should not be in the Bill but which should be provided. I think I will need to write to the noble Lord about exactly which parts of these clauses will be subject to further guidance, but I promise that I will write.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: When the Government look at issuing detailed guidance, I hope they will not neglect the concern of my noble friend Lord Dubs about the use of amplifying equipment. I recall that during the encampment in Parliament Square I was unable to use my parliamentary office in 1 Parliament Street over an extended period. I hope that that will be taken fully into account when detailed guidance is given by the Government. I have very many scars from that time.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we will be coming on to that. I know that there are different, but very strongly held, opinions on amplifying equipment. Westminster City Council replied that by all their measures traffic noise was more important than the amplifying equipment. I think my colleague will be coming on to that on the next amendment.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: Members of Parliament were unable to do the job for which they were elected as a result of the activities of certain of the protestors.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Having heard this useful further discussion, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I thank the Minister for his reply on the retrospective aspect of this matter. I am sure that she will be as reassured as I am by that. I thank him for his explanation on why the penalty is as it is. I still wonder whether 90 days is rather heavy-handed. We will want to come back to whether police officers should be able to vary their guidance or their judgment of a situation on Report.
	Around the House, we are in agreement that peaceful protest is a good thing and violent protest is not. On 28 March, we had a good example. At the Fortnum & Mason peaceful protest, 138 people were charged. Of several dozen violent protesters only 11 were charged. Somewhere there the police did not get their judgment right. I am grateful that my noble friend the Minister has had such broad experience of protests-going on them and now from the Dispatch Box. I am sure that he will be able to weave a careful path through this very knotty issue. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 244ZAA withdrawn.
	Amendments 244ZAB and 244ZAC not moved.
	Amendment 244ZB
	 Moved by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
	244ZB: Clause 144, page 97, line 22, leave out paragraph (a)

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, this group of amendments moves us on to amplified noise, which was referred to a moment ago. The Bill prevents all use of noise amplification equipment without prior authorisation, which rather returns us to the situation under the SOCPA provisions where you had to have prior authorisation for a demonstration. Following representations from Members of the other place and from this House, it is understandable that the Government have felt that they have to react to the issue of noise equipment. On the day of the visit of the President of the United States there were a couple of demonstrations outside this building. I am sure that all of your Lordships could tell that it was not necessary to have amplified noise equipment in order to have a loud demonstration, even from 30 or 40 people. The matter of whether we need such restrictions to be so overwhelming is one issue.
	The Bill gives a large amount of discretion to the police as regards reasonableness, on matters such as whether a person is about to turn up the volume so that people around are likely to be able to hear it. That is very theoretical and it will make the life of the police more difficult if they have to make that sort of judgment. However, there is clearly a judgment to be made here. People have a right to go about their business in the square, whether they are tourists or Londoners, and they should not have to hear an incredible amount of noise-although the traffic is probably still the noisiest thing. Our amendments probe whether there should be an overall prohibition on amplification and whether the restriction should be so broad. I beg to move.

Lord Rosser: Perhaps I may raise one point. My memory may have failed, in which case I am sure it will be pointed out to me. In the proceedings in the other place, some surprise was expressed when the Minister said that a loud radio would be regarded as amplified noise equipment. Is the Minister able to say any more about the definition of amplified noise equipment? I appreciate that it is dealt with in Clause 144(4), but if someone came along with a radio, some of which can be pretty loud, and played it, would that be regarded as being amplified noise equipment or not?

Baroness Browning: My Lords, in responding to Amendment 244ZB and its linked amendments, it is important to re-emphasise why the Government are bringing forward this package of reforms. Parliament Square is a World Heritage Site surrounded, as we know, by important historic buildings such as Westminster Abbey. Its location opposite the Houses of Parliament makes it a focus for protests, and rightly so. This means that we need to balance the competing and legitimate needs of members of the public who come to the area as protestors and of Members of Parliament and others who need to be able to carry out their daily work and enjoy the space as visitors. This extends to the use of amplified noise equipment as much as to encampments.
	However, the Government recognise that the use of loudhailers is linked to freedom of expression in a way that erecting a tent is not. The package of reforms accordingly puts lesser restrictions on the use of loudspeakers than on the erection of tents. It does this by putting in place a proportionate authorisation scheme which balances competing rights, so using a loudhailer is a prohibited activity only if it has not been authorised. The authorisation regime set out in Clause 148 applies to a much smaller area than the SOCPA provisions which the Government are repealing. This is in line with the Government's determination to take an approach based on evidenced problems of the misuse of loudhailers in Parliament Square. The amendments would mean that there would be no regulation whatever on the use of items such as loudhailers and loudspeakers. Not only would this be an abdication of responsibility to deal with the noise nuisance that has plagued Parliament Square for many years, it would also risk causing difficulties where a number of competing protests are taking place.
	I will not go into great detail on this. I give way to the noble Lord.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Can I check on a technical point with the noble Baroness? Clause 148(5) states:
	"The notice must specify... the kind of amplified noise equipment to which the authorisation applies".
	Does that mean that there will be a control on equipment in terms of the channel output of the equipment being used? It is quite a technical question, but I would have thought that some kind of estimate must be made of the channel output of the equipment. I cannot see any other way of determining what kind of equipment could be authorised.

Baroness Browning: I do not know if I am going to answer the noble Lord in as much detail as he would like. There are already noise regulations which, for example, would deal with other types of equipment such as radios. The noble Lord is indicating from a sedentary position that that is different. Perhaps I may write to him on the point.
	We understand that the use of a loudhailer is intrinsic to the right to protest and being able to communicate one's message, but we consider that some restrictions along the lines proposed in these clauses and elsewhere in Part 3 are required in order to ensure that the rights and freedoms of others are adequately protected and balanced with the rights of protestors. We have no wish to prevent protest around Parliament, and I would hope that the other provisions in Part 3, namely the repeal of SOCPA, show clearly our commitment to restoring rights to protest.
	As I have made clear during the debate, the provisions in Part 3 are about ensuring that individuals do not usurp the rights of many others. Therefore it does not seem disproportionate for responsible authorities to be able to place limits on the duration of the use of a loudhailer. The details of this authorisation scheme are clearly set out in the Bill to ensure that it is clear and accessible to all. I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I have a further question. Sometimes when we come in by St Stephen's Entrance, 200 or 300 people might be meeting on the other side of the road where there is a space. Someone with a loudhailer will be standing there. What control on them will exist? Will they be free to use that loudhailer, or is that a regulated area?

Baroness Browning: They would be free to use it, but subject to authorisation, which at the moment they do not have. I am coming to the question of applications to use the loudhailer, which might be helpful to the noble Lord. I shall just make this point. He and I have both experienced the use of a loudhailer there. If you stand within the precincts of the House of the Commons, you cannot hear what is being said. Protestors are not delivering a message; you just hear a very loud screeching noise. In that context, I also point out that it is not only Members of Parliament who have had their work disrupted by this. It is extremely difficult for the police officers who stand permanently on duty by Palace Gates, and who also have to endure this noise.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I did not refer to Palace Gates.

Baroness Browning: You can still hear it from there. I am not saying that that is where the loudhailer is; I am saying that you can hear it from there. You cannot hear what is being said; you just hear a shriek. As I have said, we are not trying to prevent protestors using a loudhailer but we want it to be proportionate in how it impacts on other people.
	I shall just go through the regulations on applications. Twenty-one days is the period currently used by the GLA and Westminster to consider applications for loudhailers under local by-law provisions and Section 137 of SOCPA. Six days would be too short a period and would not give local authorities sufficient time to consult others. We are talking about a very limited area in which authorisation to use amplified noise equipment is needed. The authorisation scheme is there to protect competing interests in the limited space. Therefore, I urge the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
	I come to the court and the distinct issue of limiting its ability, on conviction, to make an order requiring the convicted person not to enter the controlled area of Parliament Square by imposing a time limit of no more than seven days. The Government's provisions leave the length of time entirely to the court to determine, in line with the circumstances of each case. This is wholly appropriate and would allow the courts to deal with determined individuals who might be resolute in simply coming back after seven days. I hope noble Lords will understand that we believe we have got the proportionality right here. I will write to the noble Lord on his more detailed technical question about different types of equipment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. She has certainly laid out the Government's thinking very clearly. It is still possible to see one or two difficulties. For example, if you wanted to use a loudhailer at the last minute because you had only just decided to march on a particular issue, you would not have 21 days in which to apply to do so. In that case, would you be in contravention of what is in the Bill? There may be some other details that we shall want to come back to on Report, but we now have a clear understanding of where the Government are coming from. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 244ZB withdrawn.
	Amendments 244ZBA to 244ZCC not moved.
	Amendment 244ZCCA
	 Moved by Lord Marlesford
	244ZCCA: Clause 144, leave out Clause 144 and insert-
	"Parliament Square committee
	(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall by regulations establish a committee with responsibility for managing the controlled area of Parliament Square.
	(2) The committee's members shall be representatives of-
	(a) all of the bodies which own or have responsibility for the controlled area of Parliament Square, and
	(b) the Metropolitan police force.
	(3) The committee shall co-ordinate the work of its members in order to ensure that the controlled area of Parliament Square is kept clear of litter, detritus or other debris.
	(4) The Committee shall report annually to both Houses of Parliament."

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am putting to the Government a rather simpler method of dealing with the whole problem. It is a gentler method. It is something that I have given a lot of thought to over a very long time. Indeed, I have a Private Member's Bill, which was published on 1 February, which has received lot of support. I have now incorporated that into Amendment 244ZCCA and Amendment 244ZEZA.
	This starts from the premise that we are all agreed that Parliament Square is an excellent place for there to be public protest and where there has always been public protest. It is only in recent years that the problem has emerged at all. The catalyst for the problem, of course, has been the introduction of camping. Although Parliament Square is an ideal place for people to protest and should be made available for people, it is not a good thing that people are able to camp there for weeks, months or sometimes years and hog the space, which in effect prevents other people from having use of it. It also makes it a much less impressive, vibrant and immediate source of protest. Therefore, my solution is much simpler. All we really need to do is to ensure through practical housekeeping that people do not camp there.
	The problem of control of Parliament Square should be dealt with by having a Parliament Square committee, which would have the function of managing Parliament Square. All those who were interested could be on that committee. That is laid down in my first amendment. Then my suggestion is simple. At some point during each night during midnight and 6.00 am, Parliament Square should be swept clean and any detritus left is removed. People can come back in the morning, start all over again and do whatever they want.
	When my Private Member's Bill was published, I got a telephone call from Westminster City Council which expressed great interest in it. I explained what I just said and someone said, "We never thought of that". It is not only simpler and gentler but-this might be presumptuous-it is more elegant. Frankly, the Home Office has an awful lot of people who labour to produce these things and inevitably they produce more detail. One detail leads to another and one factor leads to another. I have removed a couple of clauses from their Bill, which I hope they will not take too much offence at, but I have included in the categories in my second amendment the sort of things that could be removed.
	I hope very much that the Government will realise that this would deal with the essence of the problem. It would be much less confrontational and difficult. If it did not work, of course in the future this could be looked at again and we could do more. But by removing that catalyst of the permanent encampment and occupation of the square, which is a pretty dead form of protest, we would be moving forward. It is a solution that I hope will commend itself to the Government and I hope that they do not produce a lot of technical reasons why it is not practical. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I am very sympathetic to the amendment because I feel quite strongly, and always have done, that people should be allowed to demonstrate in the square. This is a perfectly reasonable way of dealing with the difficulties that arise. Basically, you are simply clearing the square in the evening after the demonstrations have taken place during the day.
	It always gives me a thrill when I drive around Parliament Square to see those people encamped on the pavement. This must be one of the only democracies in the whole world where people can demonstrate on the very steps of Parliament. It must be most enlightening for people coming in from all over the world to see it actually happening here in the United Kingdom. It might give them cause to reflect on the way we run our democratic arrangements in this country. This amendment should be seriously considered by the Government. It would certainly save a lot of space in the printing presses where they produce legislation and it would deal with the problem in a way that is perfectly acceptable. I hope it can be considered on Report in perhaps greater detail-perhaps even in the Division Lobbies.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is quite right. When parliamentarians from other countries come here it is one of the things that they comment on-and not adversely. They do not dwell as much on the slightly messier aspect that MPs and some noble Lords have complained about. They are more impressed with the fact that the demonstrations take place. There is much attraction in the noble Lord's amendment, not least for the Government. They have signed up to a bonfire of regulations and this gets rid of an awful lot of regulations all at once. I imagine that they will be nervous of adopting it because it seems perhaps too gentle but for my part I am very attracted to it.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I note that these two amendments are identical, and almost identical to the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Does this replace his Private Member's Bill or will we return to this on 1 July, which I think is now scheduled for the Second Reading of his Bill, for a third debate on the issue that began with the Second Reading of the Private Member's Bill of my noble friend Lord Tyler last Friday?
	As I have already said, I welcome the discussion of not just the future of Parliament Square but also the whole question of the democratic environs of the Palace of Westminster. If I might go slightly off ministerial piste, so to speak, I think that we all recognise that the most intrusive element in Parliament Square is traffic. Some of us were actively supportive of the World Squares for All initiative which intended to close off either one or two sides of the square. That would give us back a major democratic space. Part of the reason that the encampment has been able to lodge on those pavements for some time without interference is because it is difficult for the ordinary person to get across the traffic on to Parliament Square Garden under most conditions except in the middle of the night.
	If we are going to discuss the whole issue of Parliament Square and demonstrations in the vicinity of Westminster, Abingdon Green and so on, I suggest that we need to pull together a committee which will include not just the authorities here but also the Supreme Court, the authorities of Westminster Abbey and elsewhere. I am sympathetic to a good deal of what is behind the amendment but suggest that if we are to discuss this area it is not just a question of the management of demonstrations or the encampment in the middle of Parliament Square. The Government are working with the Greater London Authority, Westminster City Council and the Metropolitan Police on effective enforcement protocols. Guidance will be issued to the public about these new provisions. However, that is about the narrow issue of the future of encampments in Parliament Square. The wider issues that I suspect the noble Lord wishes to get to require debate outside the confines of the Bill. I therefore request him to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Marlesford: That was a pretty negative response, if I may say so. Although I shall withdraw my amendment, pending Report, I am very glad that I have a slot for my Private Member's Bill on 1 July, when we will have the opportunity to discuss the matter in more detail. It was mentioned several times by people in the discussion of the Bill proposed by my noble friend Lord Tyler. Indeed, my noble friend himself said that it would be a very useful follow-on for his Bill. Others welcomed it, too. Frankly, the point made by my noble friend Lord Wallace about the traffic is pretty irrelevant; it is not in any way involved in what I am suggesting, nor is it involved in what the Government suggest in their Bill. So that is a bit of a distraction.
	There seems to be an idea that this matter should be just pushed into the long grass. I know that the Home Office is very reluctant to accept views from outside, but there are occasions when it has to. I remind the House that in 1997 I proposed an amendment to have a national register of firearms on a computerised system. For 10 years, the department played "Yes Minister" in order not to get it. Fortunately, every Minister during that time on both sides did their best to get it done and, eventually, it was put into practice. It is now working extremely well. When the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, who was then chairman of the Home Affairs Committee in another place, called the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office to ask why this proposal, which had been enacted, had not been carried forward, he was told, "It was never our idea-it was Lord Marlesford's idea. We have our own views". The noble Lord said, "But it's law". Anyway, the Home Office did it eventually.
	I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Wallace does not feel inclined to take a slightly more positive view than he has done. I am glad that we will have a debate on 1 July, and I hope that noble Lords will come and take part in it-and I look forward to bringing back the amendment at Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw it.
	Amendment 244ZCCA withdrawn.
	Clause 144 agreed.
	Amendment 244ZCD not moved.
	Clause 145 : Directions under section 144: further provision
	Amendments 244ZCE to 244ZEZA not moved.
	Clause 145 agreed.
	Clause 146 : Power to seize property
	Amendments 244ZEA to 244ZEF not moved.
	Clause 146 agreed.
	Clause 147 agreed.
	Clause 148 : Authorisation for operation of amplified noise equipment
	Amendments 244ZEG and 244ZEH not moved.
	Clause 148 agreed.
	Clause 149 : Meaning of "authorised officer" and "responsible authority"
	Amendments 244ZF and 244ZG not moved.
	Clause 149 agreed.
	Clause 150 agreed.
	Amendment 244A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment 244AA not moved.
	Clause 151 agreed.
	Clause 152 : Temporary control of drugs
	Amendment 244AB
	 Moved by Baroness Meacher
	244AB: Clause 152, page 102, line 7, at beginning insert "Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985, enactments on trading standards, and"

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, Amendments 244AB and 244CA are probing amendments. My noble friends Lord Low and Lord Walton had hoped to be here but they both have prior engagements elsewhere. They were not expecting to be speaking on this Bill at this time of the evening but have both asked me to impress upon the House their strong support for these two amendments.
	The problem of legal highs, many of them produced in China and available on the web, is growing rapidly. The Government understandably want to find an appropriate response to a variety of substances involving very different levels of risk. Understandable too is the idea of temporary banning orders while information about the substances is gathered and analysed, albeit that a full evaluation of those substances will probably take about five years. I am not entirely sure what the Minister will do at the end of the one-year period.
	The only question that I hope we can address today, and it is serious, is whether the Minister will consider opening up the possibility, without making any commitment, of controlling the supply of some of these substances through alternative regulatory mechanisms rather than all of them being controlled through the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In putting this question I applaud James Brokenshire, the Minister for drugs policy in the other place, for making it clear that the temporary bans will apply only to the supply, sale and distribution of those substances and not to users, thus avoiding the criminalisation of users during the period of the temporary bans. My concern is that at the end of the banning period many of the substances will, I guess, become permanently banned. As the Bill stands, the substances would all fall within the ambit of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
	In seeking to find appropriate controls of legal highs, the Government have a wonderful opportunity to explore different methods of control and to evaluate them. It is in the spirit of wishing to work with the Government to find the best way forward that I have tabled these two amendments. Why do I regard the opportunity to evaluate alternative methods of control as so important? There is increasing evidence from across the world that a health-oriented approach to drug use is more effective than criminalisation in reducing levels of addiction. Surely that is our common goal.
	The Global Commission on Drug Policy concluded that criminalising drugs users has failed to reduce problem drug use. It recommends, rather precisely, the approach of our two amendments: to encourage experimentation, with alternative methods of control of less harmful drugs, evaluation and the introduction of evidence-based treatment. I know that the Minister would wish to take seriously the recommendations of global commission members, among them Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations- he was ultimately responsible for overseeing the implementation of the UN drugs conventions-Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve and George Shultz, former US Secretary of State, all highly regarded world figures, not to mention the raft of ex-Presidents of countries in Europe and Latin America. I am sure that the Minister will want to take most seriously the views of all of those people.
	Globally, the use of drugs continues to rise at an alarming rate: opiates by 34.5 per cent, cocaine by 27 per cent and cannabis by 8.5 per cent in the 10 years to 2008. In the UK, as we have focused more upon the treatment of users and as the police increasingly, though not uniformly, turn a blind eye to cannabis use we have seen a flattening out of some drug-use statistics. Any switch from criminalising to evidence-based health policies seems to be helpful and I know that the Government plan to increase access to drug treatments. Our aim today is to ensure that the policy for legal highs discourages problem drug use, rather than driving people into the hands of unscrupulous drug traffickers and on to the most dangerous and contaminated substances.
	What are the consequences likely to be of a ban on legal highs? We can look at the impact of the ban on mephedrone, for example. Did it reduce mephedrone use? Apparently not. In the latest Mixmag annual survey, a higher proportion, 61 per cent of respondents, had used mephedrone in the year following the ban than the 42 per cent in the year before. Three-quarters of those who had ever tried mephedrone had apparently done so since it was banned in April 2010. Some had decided to use ecstasy instead, and 19 per cent said that they had used more cocaine as a result of the ban. I do not necessarily understand all of this, but that information is relevant to our debate today.
	Regulation of such a market is far from straightforward. Whatever the policy, young people need to know the risks associated with these highs. Will the Minister agree to fund an information campaign on legal highs and evaluate it as one element of the evidence base for future policy-making?
	A warning signal comes from the Demos/UKDPC study, which points out that banning substances without clear evidence of harm could forestall the research and development of useful medicines. They also point out that bans can result in people turning to more harmful substances. Will the Minister comment upon these concerns?
	In the Netherlands and Finland, legal highs have been controlled through medicines legislation. Austria has also used medicines legislation to restrict the sale of "spice" without criminalising users. There is little analysis yet about the effectiveness of this approach. Have the Government explored the possibility of using medicines legislation in this country and our evaluating it ourselves?
	New Zealand has tried both the regulation and the prohibition of BZP, a legal high. The New Zealand Law Commission reviewed the alternative methods of control and favoured regulation over prohibition. I would welcome the Minister's response to the New Zealand commission's conclusions.
	The APPG on Drug Policy Reform, which I chair, is planning to undertake an inquiry into alternative forms of control for legal highs. We hope to report in six to nine months. I hope that we can work with the Government to find the best solution to a very difficult problem, but in order to do that we need the door to be kept a little ajar in Clause 152. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, my name is to this amendment. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for her energetic work in this area. She has given the House an excellent introduction to this amendment so I will not delay things at all, except to say that since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 one Government or another-indeed, society as a whole-have tried almost everything in the book. We have not got anywhere with it, really. The so-called war on drugs is a stalemate at best; at worst, we are losing the battle. This seems a good moment to try a different approach. Something in particular that has changed is that in the early 1970s, when we did not have the internet, people could not just order things online and get them by post. The public now are looking for consumer protection, whether for aspirins or legal highs. I understand that we all, whatever our political point of view, have to approach this question with great sensitivity; it is not an easy one. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment in the way that she has. It gives us a great opportunity.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, the whole House should congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the way in which she has introduced the amendment. It has given us a good perspective on these issues and picks up on the very good debate on this topic that we had at Second Reading.
	This side of the House took from that debate the concern that has just been mentioned about the rhetoric of the war on drugs and the worry that that may have outlived its purpose. Our concern is that there needs to be a new look at all the psychoactive drugs, and a policy that looks through one prism at the way in which they impact on individuals and society. Our continuing worry has been expressed again today: that policy in this area needs to be joined up much better, so that the health and educational aspects of all work on drugs are brought together. I know-at least, I hope-that the Minister shares in that expression of concern. Whether that amounts to a need for a new plan B in this area would be a good debate and might be something that we want to come back to on Report.
	Our amendments in this group are supportive of the original amendment. We feel that control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 may be appropriate for the most harmful new substances, but it has a number of negative consequences that can increase the dangers to some users from the substance in question and other more harmful substances for which new drugs may be substituted. It would therefore be appropriate for the ACMD to be asked also to consider the use of other legal powers, such as consumer protection legislation, trading standards in particular or, as has been discussed, medicines controls, before they consider recommending the use of temporary banning orders.
	As has been mentioned again in this debate, the experience of the control of mephedrone indicates that the Government can at times have very limited information about both the impact of controlled substances on users and the changes in usage in terms of the adoption of both less and more harmful behaviours caused by the introduction of legal controls. Again, it would be appropriate for the ACMD to commit to reviewing the effects, both positive and negative, of each temporary ban before making any recommendations about making the control permanent. It should be noted that, even one year after a temporary ban has been introduced, robust data about usage and the impact of the ban are likely to be limited unless steps are taken to improve data collection processes. The evaluation should certainly consider, at the very minimum, the impact of temporary bans on the use of the banned substances: the actual use of the substance, its purity and the replacement of the banned substance with other substances, including controlled and other substances.
	Finally, the Government should be encouraged to commit to reviewing the temporary banning powers in general after three years from their first use. This will provide an opportunity to evaluate how effectively they are being used and what impact they are having on the consideration of other control mechanisms.

Baroness Browning: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I know that we share an understanding across the House of the seriousness of this important subject. The measures in this legislation are designed to implement a coalition agreement that we would introduce a system of temporary bans on new legal highs and psychoactive substances while health issues are considered by independent experts. We will not permanently ban a substance without receiving full advice from the ACMD. That was the Government's commitment. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that, although this has come before the House in this legislation, we have not been neglectful of the need to act quickly on these matters. We know that this is a fast-moving subject.
	We have, for example, completed a three-month pilot to explore improvements to the current forensic early-warning system for indentifying new and emerging drugs, which are emerging all the time. The forensic early warning system will see the Government and the forensic community working together to proactively identify emerging drugs using a range of methods including laboratory testing and analysis of police seizures. I will not say more about that, but I wanted to share it with the House because it is important that, while we legislate on the need to be able to bring in these temporary bans, a lot of work takes place alongside that.
	Of course, we also rely on the expert advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which we consider to be an important part of the process. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already asked the ACMD to produce a further report in the summer, looking at how we will take this overall policy forward in a more general way.
	Clause 152 introduces Schedule 17 provisions for temporary class drug orders by virtue of amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The new provisions will ensure that our drug laws are responsive to the changing drug landscape. New emerging psychoactive substances come at pace out of laboratories where they are designed. As has been mentioned, these laboratories are not necessarily located in this country. The substances may also be marketed from abroad and, as we have heard, over the web. Suppliers market them to young people in particular. We propose to remove from these unscrupulous manufacturers and suppliers the opportunity to cause harm to the public with these new synthetic drugs. The UK's response, including the use of the new powers, will remain proportionate to the threat that a new drug poses.
	The Secretary of State must meet two conditions to invoke a temporary class drug order which are aligned to current provisions for permanent drug control. The first condition is to have established that the drug in question must not be caught under the 1971 Act. The second condition, which we introduced in response to the concerns expressed by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and in the other place, is that ACMD must be consulted or have made a recommendation for an order to be made.
	The ACMD will continue to be entrusted with the provision of comprehensive advice to government on measures that ought to be taken. As an independent expert body, it will provide best advice that may or may not include a recommendation to make a temporary class drug order. It may or may not include broader advice. The Government have no intention of fettering the basis on which its experts advise. Noble Lords will be interested to know that we will shortly be receiving from the ACMD its general advice on approaches to demand and supply of new psychoactive substances. We will give full consideration to that advice and implement it where appropriate.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suggests in her amendments that the supply of a temporary class drug should be regulated under the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985, I believe with the purpose of restricting sales to a person under the age of 18. I commend her focus on protecting young people from these drugs and their harms. She and I have discussed this very important area and I hope that we will continue to do so. However, if the ACMD and the Secretary of State consider that a drug's harms are or have the potential to warrant temporary control, it is the Government's policy to take steps that protect all of society, not just those under the age of 18.
	I was also asked-I think by the noble Baroness-about the need for more information to be provided, particularly to young people. We are hoping to improve this situation. Since I took up my post in the Home Office, I have written to the organisers of music and pop festivals which take place around the country at this time of year. My predecessor did this last year. It was a good way to get that information across to the people who attend these festivals-that is, through the organisers. That would apply particularly to some of the young people the noble Baroness mentioned.
	The new powers will bring control of a temporary class drug order under the 1971 Act, which requires that an initial impact assessment is made. Under the current provisions, a further, fuller impact assessment is required if a drug is to be permanently controlled, and in more detail where any legitimate use of the drug has been identified. We want to avoid duplicating those arrangements that are already in place.
	In addition, annual publications of drug misuse and enforcement statistics and research outcomes in the delivery of our policies will also give effect to noble Lords' and the Government's shared purpose of gathering evidence to inform our policies. We regard that as very important.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned methadrone and the Mixmag survey. Although mephedrone became a controlled class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act on 16 April 2010, and the Mixmag survey of 16 to 24 year-olds survey showed that since the drug was banned 56 per cent of respondents said that their use of the drug had decreased or stopped, perhaps particularly important was the fact that since the ban approximately 141 kilos of mephedrone were seized by the UK Border Agency. That is a quantity of the drug that has not gone into the public arena for use by young people.
	Further amendments seek to require the Secretary of State to review the new provisions in consultation with the ACMD. I will expand on my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, with reference to the current provisions of the 1971 Act, under which the ACMD has a statutory duty to,
	"keep under review the situation in the United Kingdom with respect to drugs",
	and to advise Government on drug policy. I come back to the fact that we think that it is important that when we are advised-and the committee has a statutory duty to advise-we take very seriously the advice that the Government are given.
	We believe that all our drug policies should be kept under review. We have made this commitment in our Drug Strategy, by placing the ACMD's advice on new psychoactive substances at the heart of enabling the delivery of the strategy. Members of the House will perhaps be aware that there is a draft working protocol between the advisory committee and the Home Secretary. Copies of that have been in the Library for some time. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness and noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.

Baroness Meacher: My Lords, I very much welcome the comments of the Minister about the Government's reliance on the ACMD. I understand that the Government will respond positively to its advice. I also very much welcome her point about improving information to young people, particularly through festivals, and her recognition of the need for a full impact assessment of these bans before taking things further. I was interested to note that the Minister did not counter my figures on mephedrone-in other words, more people seemed to use it after the ban than before it. I look forward to further discussions with Ministers on this very important issue, although it is late in the evening for this discussion. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 244AB withdrawn.
	Clause 152 agreed.
	Schedule 17 : Temporary class drug orders
	Amendments 244B to 244CA not moved.
	Schedule 17 agreed.
	Clause 153 : Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
	Amendment 244D
	 Moved by Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
	244D: Clause 153, page 102, line 11, leave out paragraph (a)

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, this amendment obviously concerns the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and I must declare an interest, having been a member of the technical committee of the ACMD until last month.
	This committee, as everyone knows, has gone through some turbulent times. One can, in some ways, see why the Government's proposed wording to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act is as it is, because it aims to provide greater flexibility and to avoid situations where the council could not meet if the constitution was too rigid.
	I understand that the Government have said that they will publish a working protocol governing their relationship with the ACMD, but that has not, as yet, been produced. It is likely to include a list of areas of expertise to which the Home Secretary will have regard when making appointments to the ACMD, and the protocol will be placed in the Library. Unfortunately, my understanding is that the protocol will not be available until after the Bill has received Royal Assent, which is why the amendment is important. We need to know what is to happen. The protocol may not be a sufficient safeguard in the longer term to ensure that there is a well-balanced ACMD. A future Home Secretary would be under no obligation to follow the principles of the working protocol. If it was guidance; they could simply decide to ignore it.
	The reason for specifying the groups in the amendment is to try to be broadbrush, without being too prescriptive. Having been a member of the technical committee, I became acutely aware of how important the scientists, the drug control people and the behavioural scientists were to that committee. They brought a dimension and understanding to some things that the rest of us did not have, however much we tried to read around the subject. One of the people from whom I learnt the most was a member of the police force on the technical committee, who brought a degree of insight into the functioning of the outputs of the committee that I found most helpful, as, I think, did others. We invited experts to give us evidence, but the collective memory that formed around the table was important.
	I question the Minister about exactly how the process of appointing new members to the council will be conducted. The experience of appointments made in January this year and the subsequent cancellation of one of those appointments, that of Doctor Hans-Christian Raabe, suggests that improvements could be made to the appointments process. When non-scientific appointments are being made, will be Government ensure the expertise available to the appointment panels to assess the competencies of those who are applying? They might look good on paper, but if the appointment panel cannot ask the appropriate questions, it may miss out on the person who could contribute most to the panel.
	Under the amendment, I seek assurance about the present safeguards to ensure that appointees have the appropriate level of experience, and how they will be transferred when the Bill comes into force, to avoid a repetition of some of the unfortunate incidents that have occurred recently, and the bad publicity that goes with that, which undermines the credibility not only of the committee but, more importantly, of its decisions. I beg to move.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, although not wanting to repeat the eloquent and informed moving of the amendment by the noble Baroness, I shall speak briefly in support of it. I can well understand why the Government want to be rid of the six specified disciplines in existing law. They are too prescriptive. However, the noble Baroness in her amendment has set out in a much broader way the activities and experience of people who should be members of the advisory council.
	I find it difficult to understand why the protocol has not yet been published. It cannot be too long a document and it cannot take too great a time to prepare. I hope that we will hear something positive from the Minister about the future of the council. In particular, it would be very helpful if my noble friend could tell the House that at least the spirit of the noble Baroness's amendment will be incorporated in the protocol. Above all, perhaps she could assure the House that the prediction that the protocol will not be produced until after Royal Assent is quite wrong and that it will in fact be produced quickly-we hope, so that it is available to Members of this House by Report.

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, close readers of the Marshalled List will realise that the amendments in my name are very similar to those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Indeed, I read them three or four times and I still cannot quite see the difference between them. I am not sure why they appear twice. In fact, it is impossible to read things at this stage, because having been through the alphabet soup of the amendment list, you get so confused about what is or is not there. The noble Lords who have occupied the Chair have done a fantastic job in guiding us through without too many mistakes, so that we have arrived at a Bill that will contain most of the things that it should.
	That aside, I simply want to make the point that has been very well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. In her response to the previous group, the noble Baroness the Minister mentioned the ACMD about eight times, reflecting the importance that the Government place on that. At the same time, in the name of flexibility, they are seeking to make rather more opaque exactly how those members will be appointed, what their specialisms will be; nor have they given us a sense through the protocol of how they intend to do this. This is not a satisfactory basis for proceeding and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to us. We remain in some doubt as to why appointments to the ACMD have been made so flexible; nor are we able to know what they will be looking for in the future.

Baroness Browning: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. On the last group of amendments, I referred to the protocol. It is true that we are still working on the protocol for the ACMD but the draft protocol was placed in the House of Lords Library in April this year.
	The working protocol makes very clear that the ACMD will inform the Home Office what expertise it requires and that the Home Office will seek the views of the ACMD to inform any recruitment campaign. The chief scientific adviser to the Home Office will advise the Home Secretary on the balanced membership requirements appropriate to available resource and the need for effective functioning, and the chair of the ACMD will sit on interview panels. I that hope noble Lords who have not yet availed themselves of that document will obtain a copy from the Library.
	The Government share the concern for ensuring the quality of the ACMD's expert advice to inform our drug policy. Therefore, I welcome this opportunity to set out our reasons for proposing this change to the ACMD's constitution, and in particular to disabuse noble Lords of the allegations laid at the Government's door that we are intending to remove scientists from the ACMD, which could not be further from the truth.
	I fully acknowledge the intention of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. It may not appear so at first consideration but we share a common interest and appear to be working to a common end, namely securing expertise to the ACMD from which it may provide high-quality advice and by which we may maintain public confidence in that advice. However, we are going about it in a different way. Our proposal is intended to place all members of the ACMD on an equal footing. It might be of interest to the House to know that similar constitutional changes were made to the advisory body under the Medicines Act 1968, the original requirements in it having been similar to requirements placed in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The statutory membership requirements were removed in 2005 and replaced by a broad understanding that members will be appointed because of their high-level scientific expertise and their ability in critical appraisal rather than, as my noble friend Lord Carlile pointed out, a rather old-fashioned and pre-prescribed set of six disciplines.
	We recognise that each member of the ACMD has a valuable contribution to make to the work of the council. We take the view that placing one area of expertise on a greater footing than others brings into question the need for the latter. In addition, we do not want to devalue ACMD advice where it derives from particular areas of non-statutory expertise altogether. I advise noble Lords to consider the list of expertise of which it is anticipated that the ACMD membership will be predominantly drawn up, as outlined in the working protocol. When members who have not had a chance to look at the protocol see that list, if they have issues about it or the range of disciplines suggested I would be very happy discuss those with them.
	The working protocol also sets out the future involvement of the ACMD in recruiting new members, and the Government and the ACMD are prepared to be held to account on the terms of the protocol. The final version will be published and placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	The Government are of the view that we are giving a far more expansive commitment regarding the expert advice and independence of the ACMD than it is reasonable to doubt. It is not in anyone's interests, including those of the public, to expose the ACMD-the advice that it gives, the actions that the Government may take in response to that advice and, as appropriate, Parliament's endorsement of those actions-to speculation and indeed to challenge over whether at any point the ACMD has members who cover the expertise that a statute may discriminate in favour of. I am sure that it is not noble Lords' intention to facilitate such a situation but it would be an unacceptable product of these amendments.
	I am aware that there is a lot of business still to conclude but this is an important subject and I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if I put on the record that we have received broad support for this change and for our intent to have a non-statutory list of expertise. Support has come from the Academy of Medical Sciences, the British Academy, the British Society of Criminology, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the British Pharmacological Society, the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Medicine. The science and technology committees of both Houses were also consulted. The committee of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, welcomed the added flexibility for the ACMD's membership and Sir John Beddington, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser in the Government Office for Science, was also supportive. Indeed, it has the support of the ACMD.
	I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that tonight I am not able to go into issues relating to individual members of the ACMD. She will probably be aware that the case she referred to is subject to legal proceedings, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it tonight. I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am most grateful to the Minister for her extensive response and for the reassurance that she has given. I apologise most sincerely to the Committee as I had been unaware that the draft protocol had been placed in the Library in April.
	I am glad that there is reassurance that there will be a strengthening of science and, of course, a recognition of the importance of critical appraisal skills. In the modern world, that is absolutely essential, although it was not essential when the old formula for the committee was drawn up. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 244D withdrawn.
	Amendments 244E to 244G not moved.
	Clause 153 agreed.
	Clause 154 : Restriction on issue of arrest warrants in private prosecutions
	Amendment 245
	 Moved by Lord Campbell-Savours
	245: Clause 154, page 102, line 19, leave out from "applies" to end of line 20 and insert-
	"(a) a justice of the peace shall apply to the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice on the advisability of granting the warrant or summons,
	(b) no warrant or summons shall be issued under this section without taking into account any advice given by the Director of Public Prosecutions"

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, before I deal with my amendment in detail, I want to say a few words by way of preamble. I am not a lawyer and I cannot claim any knowledge of the background to the administration of justice in the courts, but I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group and I have closely followed the debate on this matter in the other place.
	A lawyer put it to me in this way the other day: "Clause 154 presents us with a paradox. The Department of Justice is responsible for the administration of justice, yet in certain cases it does not have confidence in the judges it appoints to sensibly administer the justice system, so it effectively nationalises the responsibility". What many of those concerned about Clause 154 keep asking themselves is: what is driving this agenda on? Some people believe that in part it is fear among some supporters of the state of Israel that prominent Israeli citizens who stand accused of breaches of international law might be detained when visiting the United Kingdom. The problem is that there is an element of truth in all this in that, out of the 10 applications made over the past 10 years, the only two that I understand were successful were against Israeli citizens: one the former Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni; the other, Major-General Almog. I have to confess that this targeting of Israeli citizens is a very powerful argument for giving the DPP greater responsibility than the Government proposed. But is it so powerful an argument as to totally undermine the well-trodden path of the legitimate right of the citizen to step in where the state may fear to tread for all sorts of diplomatic, interstate, political or commercial considerations?
	The problem is that people have difficulty distinguishing the actions of political leaders in democratic states, such as Israel, which I strongly support, who mistakenly believe that they are defending the interests of their democratic state by engaging in actions which border on breaches of international law. Some people confuse Israeli excesses in Gaza with monstrous atrocities in Srebrenica, Rwanda, the Congo, Uganda, Cambodia and the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka. But in my view it is totally counterproductive to threaten the Israeli leadership with arrest. We have to maintain a dialogue with such people and force their hand if necessary through sanctions, freezes on assets and other heavy forms of action depending on the circumstances. So, although I have some sympathy with the Government's overriding concerns, I believe that they are proceeding in the wrong way.
	I shall now speak to my Amendment 245. I tabled this amendment before the publication of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Our excellent report captures very well almost all the concerns that I would raise. The Government have explained that their motivation for changing the procedure in these cases is to prevent vexatious applications being successful; that it should not be possible for someone to be able to obtain an arrest warrant as part of a stunt or to make a political point. The Government are quite right on this. However, eight of the applications were turned down by the courts and no warrant was issued. So it is not entirely clear to me that such a major change in the law is necessary. The courts seem to be doing a good job in the few cases that there are of weeding out vexatious applications and turning them down. Furthermore, those cases involve the very same experienced district judges who sit at the City of Westminster magistrates' court-the same judges whom we entrust to hear terrorism and extradition cases. They are people with experience whom we can describe as a steady pair of hands. It is just not clear to me why the Government think that we should trust these people to be wise and judicious in terrorism and extradition cases but not in universal jurisdiction arrest warrant cases.
	I am not wholly unsympathetic to the Government's aims. Perhaps there is a need to make it completely clear that the law of England and Wales can allow arrest warrants to be issued only in genuine and serious cases. However, I am not sure that the Government have got the change quite right in their proposals in the Bill. The Joint Committee on Human Rights recommends in its report that,
	"if no further justification for the existing proposal is provided, the Bill be amended to substitute the requirement for the DPP to consent with a requirement for the applicants to notify the DPP of any application for an arrest warrant",
	which I understand is the substance of one of the amendments before us. That appears to me to be the substance of the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
	My amendment is very similar but I go a little further. I have tried to capture the enhanced role for the DPP that the Government want to bring in. Crucially, my amendment-like that of the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester-would leave the final decision to a court. That is very important. The effect of the Government's proposal is that in practice the DPP will be the decision-maker on whether an arrest warrant is granted. Although it is reasonable for the Government to want the DPP to have a role, it is important that the court remains the final arbiter.
	Under my amendment, on receiving an application for an arrest warrant in respect of the relevant offences, the court would contact the DPP and request his advice on the likelihood of a future prosecution. This would mean making available to the DPP the evidence on which the arrest warrant would be decided. The court would then be obliged to take into account the advice of the DPP. It may be argued by those who oppose the Government's proposals that in practice this is not much different from those proposals. However, I have tried to reflect the fact that it is very important who the decision-maker is: it must be the court. The Government want a role for the DPP, so I have suggested that the court should be obliged to take into account the advice of the DPP in making its decision.
	There are several closely connected issues that the Government should also clarify. They concern the test that is to be applied by the DPP. This issue, too, is addressed in the Joint Committee report, and is at the heart of the debate. The first aspect is the level of evidence that will be required. Currently, as I understand it, a court is required to establish that prima facie evidence exists-although I am told that in practice a higher standard of evidence has been applied in previous cases. Alternatively, there might be a threshold test to establish if the evidence is such that it is reasonable to suppose that, in a reasonable time, there will be a reasonable prospect of conviction; or the full code prosecutorial test to establish if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable prospect of conviction. As a non-lawyer, I believe that it should be something more like the threshold test, which the public would understand and which would allow at least for an interview prior to action. It would be helpful if the Government would clarify what tests they expect the DPP to apply. The other element of the test is a consideration of the public interest. Having applied the evidential elements, the DPP would go on to consider the public interest element. This area would benefit from clarification from the Government, for it is here that suspicion surrounding the change is centred.
	In conclusion, I would like us to note that the Government are proposing an entirely new role for the DPP. As I understand it, they are not extending to further offences a role that already exists in relation to some offences; the role is entirely new. Arrest warrants are not normally the domain of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In framing the new procedure, it is important to get it right. The Government have not quite got the balance right in their proposals, and I hope that my amendment will be the subject of serious consideration. I beg to move.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, because of the lateness of the hour, I will not rehearse the arguments put forward so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, with which I broadly agree; our aims are very similar. However, I will emphasise one or two points. My interest is in a fair application of universal jurisdiction. Whatever the driving causes of this are, this country has a duty to apply universal jurisdiction, as other European countries do. In defending the proposition that the current system is neither mischievous nor vexatious, I will add that in the past 10 years, only two cases have resulted in successful prosecution-one in 1999 and one in 2005. The 2005 case concerned an Afghan man who was convicted of torture and hostage taking. I think this argues for a pretty restrained system. Indeed, it is very far from being a vexatious system at the moment.
	I would like to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has said about the system being very efficient at the moment. The magistrates know what they are doing, and they do it very well. There is also a need in these cases, as many noble Lords know, for very speedy and effective action. The new arrangement that is put forward in this Bill would undoubtedly take more time, and that would mean a diminishment of justice. The new arrangement proposed by the Bill also compares somewhat unfavourably with systems in other countries that accept the principle and practice of universal jurisdiction. As the noble Lord said, the Bill as it stands does not spell out what standards the DPP will invoke in deciding whether to grant a warrant. However, if these are stringent in the sense of meeting the full code test-meaning a realistic chance of conviction-they will stretch NGOs with slender resources, which are the only bodies that undertake the initial stages of this crucial aspect of justice. Demanding the full code test would undoubtedly have a chilling effect on the practice of this aspect of justice.
	Other factors are also important. There is a clear distinction between arrest and prosecution and the very nature of cases involving foreign citizens who are suspected of grievous crimes requires speedier arrest while the case is then prepared for prosecution. Anything that interferes with the element of speed and surprise clearly acts against the application of justice.
	The amendment tabled in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, affords a role for the DPP in that he or she can make proper representation in court and his or her views will be taken into account in any decisions arrived at by magistrates. In this way, the need for speedy action is preserved, as is the expertise and credibility of magistrates. I think the amendment goes some way to meet the Government's concerns expressed at earlier stages of this Bill but also maintains the advantages of the present system.
	Finally, if we are serious about universal jurisdiction, and I think we should be, we cannot allow a system that has at least a chance of successful apprehension and arrest of suspected criminals to be undermined for reasons of political expediency.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Tonge. Like the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, I will abbreviate my remarks in view of the opening comments by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, with which I wholly concur. Indeed, my amendment differs from his and from that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, and my noble friends Lord Lester and Lady Tonge, in only one particular respect. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, allows-indeed, requires-a justice of the peace to get the advice of the DPP on the advisability of granting a warrant. The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, and others would allow the court to receive advice from the DPP. I am adamant that any advice given with regard to these matters, which are intrinsically important, must be in open court. It is for the DPP to take the opportunity which is available under both those amendments, I think, to go to the court and argue the matter in open court, not by way of written private advice.
	I think that the status quo is perfectly satisfactory and that meddling with citizens' rights in the age of the overmighty state is extremely dangerous. Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I drafted my amendment and put it down before I saw the evidence submitted by Justice, Liberty and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is worth putting on the record not only that the Joint Committee argued long, fully and with conviction that the arrangements in this Bill are wrong in principle and in practice and ended up, I am happy to say, taking exactly the line that the amendment tabled in my name takes. The same was true of Liberty. Justice simply wanted Clause 154 removed all together, leaving things entirely with the status quo.
	At least my amendment will give further strength to the procedure if that is needed. I do not think that it is but I put it forward in a conciliatory way. As has been said, it is worth briefly repeating that we already have judicial oversight under existing law. It is already the practice to deal with these extremely difficult applications for warrant only before a district judge-who we used to call a stipendiary-who is not only a professional judge but also, because they are heard before the City of Westminster Bench, is a specialist in matters of this type. The district judges concerned deal, for example, with terrorism extradition cases. The judge, whoever he or she is, must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds that the offence has been committed and that there is admissible evidence which, if uncontradicted, could establish the elements of the offence.
	There is also of course state immunity. State immunity was exercised in the case of General Mofaz in February 2004 when he was saved from the issue of a warrant on the grounds of state immunity. Let us not forget that the Attorney-General has the right to intervene and issue a nolle prosequi, which puts an end to it. The Attorney-General will do that on grounds of public interest. As I have said, this is a misguided provision. Perhaps I may quickly read the conclusion of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is extremely clear in explaining the difference between the Bill and my amendment. It states that "The difference between notification" of the DPP "and consent" of the DPP,
	"would be significant. On notification, even if the DPP applied the general prosecutorial test in determining whether to intervene in an application, the ultimate decision on whether to issue an arrest warrant would lie with the Magistrate on the test applied at the present. By contrast, if consent is a precursor, then the determinative decision will in practice be that of the DPP".
	Finally, it is relevant to say that, in the Gourier case, Lord Wilberforce said that the right of the private citizen to apply for a warrant and to take a prosecution is,
	"a valuable corrective against the inertia or partiality on the part of authority".
	On another occasion, Lord Diplock made comparable remarks. For those reasons, it would be a retrograde step to approve the Bill as it stands.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I shall speak to the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, who cannot be here this evening, and myself. From the position of practitioners with hands-on experience of the criminal courts throughout our legal careers, we believe that the existing system works perfectly adequately. I concur with the views that have already been expressed in that way. Few applications are made and, of those that are, most are rejected by the magistrate who is the highly experienced person. Why then is there a need to move away from the current position? We are told that it is because there are people who feel that if they come to this country they may be subject to a private prosecution and to arrest.
	Those who feel that way in foreign countries simply do not understand the practice and procedure of our courts. It is strange to amend our law not because of a real problem but because there are people abroad who believe that a problem exists when it does not. We are moving from the position that if the Government want to introduce the question of the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, it should be made equally clear at the same time that the tests to be applied are those which would be applied in an ordinary criminal case in this country. No special tests will be needed for those from abroad and who face allegations of offences of universal jurisdiction.
	We feel that the tests that are to be applied are those of the existing discretions of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have been approached today by my noble friend Lord Carlile in his usual genial and understated way to point out that the tests applied by the DPP are in fact subject to change. The guidance has changed in some ways. My noble friend tells me that we are now on the seventh version of guidance issued to public prosecutors. If that is the case, it is perfectly simple to redraft on Report the amendment that we have put forward so that we put in a broader way that the same tests which apply to citizens of this country will also apply in the case of people who come to this country.
	But there is a difference with private prosecutions. Let me say that no practising criminal lawyer has any time for private prosecutions. They generally fail, and generally they cause great harm and trouble to people. We feel that prosecution should be in the hands of people charged with those duties; namely, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service, which acts under the director. The distinction is that the arrest warrant in a private prosecution leads to trial. When the police arrest someone, there is an arrest, and then there is a consideration of evidence that is obtained between arrest and charge. The charge is brought on the advice of the CPS only where there is sufficient evidence for the case to go forward. At that intermediate stage, the charge does not exist in private prosecutions, and therefore the issuing of an arrest warrant leads, as I have said, straight to trial. We believe that safeguards are needed.
	We start from the basis that there is no need to amend the existing position.

Lord Goldsmith: I wonder if the noble Lord could help me on one point. As an experienced criminal practitioner, as he rightly describes himself, he is well aware that there are two elements in the code for Crown prosecutors. One is the test as to the adequacy of the evidence and the second is the public interest. Both have to be satisfied before a prosecution takes place. I note that in the amendment tabled in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, there are two parts to this test. One part of the test, in proposed new subsection (4AA)(a), applies when there is enough evidence to be satisfied that there is a realistic prospect, so in that case there needs to be a consideration of the public interest. In the second test, in proposed new paragraph (b), which is where there is not enough evidence, there is no reference to the public interest at all. That is probably the most likely situation-that there is not enough evidence at that stage to know if there is a realistic prospect-so why does the public interest not come into his amendment at all, even though he has been addressing it on the basis that it is to replicate the current system, which requires the public interest to be considered?

Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble and learned Lord makes a very valid point and I accept that of course it is intended that the public interest test should apply in the second of the two instances as well, although it is not stated in the amendment. As the noble Lord said, we are seeking a solution that will ameliorate the decision of the Government to make it an essential prerequisite for the commencement of a private prosecution that the director consents. We simply seek to make it absolutely clear that the director will not apply a different test to people who come to this country. I hope that that answers the noble and learned Lord.

Lord Goldsmith: Does the noble Lord agree that in those circumstances it would be wrong for the House to accept the amendment as it is put forward?

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I do not propose to ask the House to agree to this amendment tonight. This is the Committee stage. We shall consider the issue further. As I have already said, the criticisms so gently advanced to me by my noble friend have led me to believe that we might consider how to rephrase it in a way that would be more acceptable to the House.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, we are proceeding in the usual orderly way of your Lordships' House and there remain two amendments that have not yet been spoken to. The first of those is the new clause proposed in Amendment 246, which is in my name and those of other noble Lords, who have been very helpful in our approach to it. Then there is an amendment to that new clause in the name of my noble friend Lady Tonge. I say at the outset that I accept entirely her amendment to my proposed new clause. It seems eminently sensible. The proposed new clause is about giving an account to Parliament of the progress in war crimes cases. I hope the House will indulge me for a few minutes in speaking to this. I shall then say a few words about the matters that have been discussed hitherto. However, unlike my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, I shall not give further details of what was designated by him to be a private conversation that took place earlier in the Bishops' Bar.
	There is a specialist war crimes team within the UK Border Agency, which is a very good thing. However, unlike many European and other countries, there is no specialist war crimes unit in either the police or the prosecution services. Other noble Lords and I were involved in all-party and non-party negotiations with the previous Government to expand the universal jurisdiction. Those negotiations were successful. However, they were successful subject to the insistence of the previous Government that what is in Clause 154 should be inserted into the law. All those involved in those negotiations accepted that at the time as being a realistic argument.
	As I have said, there is no specialist war crimes unit in either the police or the prosecution service in any part of the United Kingdom. Instead, in England and Wales responsibility for war crimes is shared by SO15-Counter Terrorism Command in the Metropolitan Police-and the equivalent section, headed by Sue Hemming OBE, in the Crown Prosecution Service. The police team responsible for war crimes is also tasked with counterterrorism policing relating to dissident republican groups from Ireland. It therefore has an enormous amount of work to do and deals with a fast-moving scene, irrespective of war crimes.
	What does the proposed new clause seek to do? It requires the Government to report annually on all legal action taken against suspected war criminals in the United Kingdom, and on the assistance given to other states and international criminal tribunals. I should argue to your Lordships that it is entirely reasonable and proper that the public and Parliament should be able to take stock of progress in war crimes on a regular basis. Taking stock in that way-having accountability of that kind-will ensure that the Government bestow on the relevant police section the resources that are needed to prosecute war crimes. There have been no prosecutions for war crimes since the prosecution in 2005 of an Afghan warlord who was found living in south London. However, a Peruvian was arrested in Tiverton in Devon in March 2011. He is accused of torture and crimes against humanity for his alleged role in more than 100 killings as a member of a death squad, and is currently on police bail. We hope to see some progress in that case within, of course, the usual legal proceedings.
	It is remarkable, given the number of war criminals who are believed to be living in the United Kingdom, that there have been no other prosecutions since 2005. It suggests that insufficient resources are being given to the task. After all, one should bear in mind that, since 2005, the UK Border Agency has taken immigration action against 360 suspected war criminals, while the Metropolitan Police is currently pursuing 29 viable lines of inquiry. The 360 suspects come from a number of countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia. The UK has also received extradition requests for four subjects from Rwanda who won their extradition proceedings and remain in the United Kingdom.
	In addition to the 360, I was visited this afternoon by a representative of an organisation in Bangladesh, which is not included in the list that I enumerated as 360 cases. It is believed that there are several Bangladeshis who have been able to take refuge in this country who committed vast atrocities during the 1971 war in that country. They, too, should be the subject of investigation.
	In sum, the purpose of the proposed new clause is to ensure that the necessary progress is maintained in dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give some encouragement to myself and others who they put their names to the amendment in the hope that we will see more action promised and in due course taken on this front.
	I now turn to the amendments proposed to Clause 154. Despite the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, I am disappointed that my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven was not here to speak to his amendment this afternoon. I know that he has a busy diary and I am sure that he is doing something very important. But I am glad that we have the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, who will inform the House of their experience.
	The importance of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven and his potential contribution is that he is the immediate past Director of Public Prosecutions. I am working on the assumption that he has not consulted his successor, because what is proposed in his amendment, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Thomas, is inconsistent with what has been said very cogently to parliamentary committees by the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC.
	I would say this to my noble friend if he were here, but were he still the Director of Public Prosecutions I do not believe that he would be prepared to support an amendment of this kind. It is quite simple in my view-I seem to be the only one from the Liberal Democrat Benches who is supporting our Government on this matter this evening-but the simplicity needs to be stated. The Director of Public Prosecutions and his senior staff make charging decisions every single day of the week. That is what they do a lot of the time and it is done at the most senior level. The suggestion that there would be a delay is a canard.
	I do not think that I have to declare an interest-indeed, it would be sexist to do so-when I say that my wife works in a senior position for the Crown Prosecution Service, but living with a shared telephone I am well aware of the urgent decisions that are considered in great depth and taken at all kinds of unsocial hours and on all matters of urgency. The suggestion that there would be a delay is simply quite wrong. Furthermore, the Director of Public Prosecutions and his senior staff have enormous experience in making charging decisions. They make all the important charging decisions that take place in this country-or almost all; they should make all, if they are referred to them by their junior staff. In so doing, they apply the Crown Prosecution Service code.
	These amendments, particularly that spoken to by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, attempt to fix in statutory stone something that is much more evolutionary-and needs to be. The Crown Prosecution Service code has gone through many changes. It is reviewed and changed regularly. Since Keir Starmer QC became DPP, it has been changed again and there may be good reasons for changing it in future. Furthermore I hope, and indeed apprehend, that the Director of Public Prosecutions would want to consult widely on the universal jurisdiction and might well wish to issue a code of practice. That might involve some changes to the current code. After all, the Crown Prosecution Service has a special code for dealing with rape cases which is non-statutory. It would be extremely foolish to make it statutory because it would be prevented from change. The same applies to the universal jurisdiction.
	I say to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, in the kindest possible way, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, with a single kick scored a hat trick when he demonstrated that the amendment put forward by my noble friend, and indeed by my noble friend the former Director of Public Prosecutions, is fundamentally flawed in its text. It shows exactly the danger of attempting to put into tablets of stone this sort of provision, even when it has been drafted by lawyers as distinguished as they.
	I say to noble Lords who have tabled amendments to Clause 154 that we have a responsible Crown Prosecution Service, that we have a responsible and able Director of Public Prosecutions, and that it has been decided that this should be done not by the Attorney-General but by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is a completely apolitical figure. It seems that the Government have got this exactly right. I hope that the Minister will not budge in his determination that Clause 154 should be unamended.

Lord Pannick: I was a witness to the discussions in the Bishops' Bar between the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Carlile. I will not give evidence; I claim immunity. I welcome Clause 154. It will remedy a serious anomaly in the current state of our law. The anomaly is that although a prosecution in this sensitive and important context requires the consent of the Attorney-General, a person may be arrested and detained without any consideration as to whether such consent is likely to be given. It has been suggested in this debate that there have been very few cases of that. So what is all the fuss about? Why do we need to change the law? The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made that point in opening and the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, made the same point.
	I declare an interest. Over the past few years, I have advised, pro bono, a number of individuals who have been deterred from visiting this country by reason of the state of our law. They have been deterred even though there was no realistic prospect whatever of the Attorney-General giving consent to a prosecution. These people would not have been protected by diplomatic immunity because that applies only to certain very senior Ministers. They were deterred from coming to this country because of the risk that material would be put before a magistrate at an urgently convened hearing which might result in them being arrested and detained for a couple of nights, with all the inconvenience and embarrassment that that would cause, until this unhappy matter could be sorted out by the Attorney-General confirming that he or she did not intend to prosecute. So it is quite wrong to suggest that the current law has no serious effect. I should also mention that I have also advised, again on a pro bono basis, Jewish community groups in this country concerned about this aspect of the law.
	The current law needs amendment. The law should not be threatening people with arrest and detention, and deterring them from coming to this country, perhaps for the purpose of discussions about peace in the Middle East, in respect of an alleged offence when there is no realistic prospect of the Attorney-General giving consent to prosecution. The law encourages the use of these procedures as a political gesture, and that has no place under the rule of law.
	Five arguments have been advanced today as to why the current state of the law should be maintained. I briefly seek to answer them. The first argument is that the individual will be arrested and detained only if a magistrate consents. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made this point in opening, and the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, made the same point. The noble Lord suggested that this new clause means that the Ministry of Justice has no confidence in our judgments. The difficulty with that argument is that, as the Director of Public Prosecutions carefully explained in his evidence to the House of Commons Public Bill Committee, the magistrate does not look at and assess the evidence. The magistrate proceeds simply on the basis of what is placed before the court and asks the simple question whether the allegation made satisfies the elements of the offence as defined by law. The magistrate does not apply the code for Crown prosecutors. As noble Lords know, there are two criteria in that code. Is there a realistic prospect of conviction, and would a prosecution be in the public interest? The magistrate applies neither of those tests.
	The second argument that has been advanced is that Clause 154 runs a risk of introducing political expediency into this area of the law-a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza. I do not share that concern. Under the current law, the Attorney-General decides whether to consent to prosecutions. No one suggests, I think, that the system is currently abused. In respect of the new role that will be conferred on the DPP, he himself emphasised in his evidence to the Public Bill Committee that he would of course consult the Attorney-General, but he would take a decision in this context and would do so independent of government. There is absolutely no reason to doubt that he would comply with those requirements.
	The third argument being made is that Clause 154 would somehow reduce this country's commitment to universal jurisdiction for war crimes and other serious offences. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, expressed that concern. There is no basis for that suggestion. As noble Lords know, under current law a prosecution may be brought only with the consent of the Attorney-General, who applies the principles in the code for Crown prosecutors. That will remain the law.
	Fourthly, concern has been expressed today as to whether the DPP could act in urgent circumstances if a defendant were playing a short visit to this country. Again, your Lordships need to look at the evidence given to the Public Bill Committee by the Director of Public Prosecutions. He explained that he would encourage public interest groups to come to him early with any evidence of relevant crimes. He explained that he has lawyers available to work at short notice, around the clock. That may have impacts upon the domestic harmony of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but the DPP has such hard-working expert employees.
	The DPP said that if time is very tight, he would apply a threshold test in this context: is this a case in which there is enough to satisfy him that, within a reasonable period, there will be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction? That is a fair, sensible and proper approach to take, as I am sure noble Lords will agree. It is an approach far better than to allow for foreign politicians and others to be deterred from coming to this country because of a fear that magistrates may, on hearing urgent applications, order their arrest and detention without any consideration at all of whether there is any realistic prospect of the Attorney-General giving consent to prosecution.
	Fifthly and finally, there was the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who said, "Do not meddle with citizens' rights: that is a very dangerous thing to do". Yet of course a private prosecution in this context cannot proceed under current law without the consent of the Attorney-General, who applies the twofold test in the code for Crown prosecutors. Nothing in Clause 154 interferes with the right of the private citizen to bring a private prosecution which was, and will remain, a matter that then requires the consent of the Attorney-General.
	None of the amendments before this Committee is necessary or appropriate. Amendments 245, 245A and 245AZA would all give the director an advisory role. Yet that would leave open the anomaly that the magistrate who takes the decision on whether to order arrest and detention applies a different standard to that of the Attorney-General and the DPP, who look at whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction and any public interest considerations. The amendments would ensure that the advice from the DPP would be on issues which are not for the magistrate to determine and are therefore, with great respect, very difficult to understand.

Lord Campbell-Savours: As a non-lawyer, I wonder whether I can ask the noble Lord a layman's question. What kind of considerations would the public interest considerations be in the application for a warrant in a case like this? What would the DPP have in mind?

Lord Pannick: The DPP dealt with that matter in the evidence that he gave to the Public Bill Committee. He was very reluctant to address hypotheticals but said:
	"There may be a case where there is a very powerful argument ... the example that is given by others and therefore not from my mouth is where you have a fraught and difficult peace negotiation that has to take place in 24 hours in a country and you need international leaders there. I do not know. There may be a situation where you would have to carefully consider the arguments one way or the other".-[Official Report, Commons, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill Committee, 20/1/11; col. 134.]

Lord Campbell-Savours: I-

Lord Pannick: I will just finish my answer, then I will happily give way to the noble Lord. If he is saying that public interest has no role in this area then his quarrel is with the code for Crown prosecutors, but his amendment does not address that.

Lord Campbell-Savours: When the noble Lord said that the DPP was totally independent, he appeared to be saying that they would not have political considerations in mind. If peace negotiations were about to take place, surely that is a political consideration. It is precisely those sorts of areas that might cause the public some concern, even though the justification may be merited.

Lord Pannick: I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is of course the experience of all those who have held the sensitive and difficult office of Director of Public Prosecutions and Attorney-General-we are fortunate to have two former Attorney-Generals here-that they have to address these sensitive and difficult questions. There is nothing unusual about this area that singles it out from the problems that are faced, if not on a daily basis then I am sure on a weekly or monthly basis, by those who hold that office. I am sure that they will be able to assist the House regarding this matter.
	My point is that the noble Lord's amendment seeks to give an advisory role to the DPP in relation to a matter that the magistrate simply has no role under existing law to determine. I suggest with respect that that is not a sensible way to proceed, nor would it be sensible to confer on the magistrate a new role, which the magistrate has never had, of having to consider the criteria in the code for Crown prosecutors of whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction or whether the public interest justifies a decision being taken.
	The other amendment, Amendment 245AA, would include in the legislation criteria that told the DPP how to exercise his discretion. It would be quite unprecedented for Parliament to tell the DPP what criteria to adopt in exercising his functions, nor do the courts do so. Indeed, it was highly controversial that the Appellate Committee of this House decided in July 2009 to require the DPP even to publish guidelines on whether he would prosecute for assisting a suicide. I declare an interest as counsel for Mrs Purdy in that case. Parliament and the courts have, for good reason, preferred to leave the DPP to develop his own criteria in the code for Crown prosecutors. Amendment 246 raises very different issues-

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Does the noble Lord agree that it would surely be right that the DPP should apply the same standards when he is considering one of these cases that come from abroad as he would for a person within the domestic jurisdiction?

Lord Pannick: I certainly agree that the DPP should apply the same standards in the sense that he asks whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction and whether the public interest justifies a prosecution. The application of those principles, though, will inevitably depend on all the facts and circumstances of the individual case. It would be unprecedented for Parliament to tell the DPP in detail how to apply his discretion, and there is nothing in what the DPP said to the Public Bill Committee that should cause concern to noble Lords about the manner in which he proposes to exercise this new power if he is given it.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I think it is fair that I ask the noble Lord this. He has said several times now that the consent of the Attorney-General to one of these prosecutions is required. My understanding, and I want to get this quite clear, is that the Attorney-General can issue a nolle prosequi that his consent is not required.

Lord Pannick: It amounts to the same thing. If the Attorney-General takes the view that it is inappropriate for a prosecution to continue, they will say so. The purpose of the provision of English law is to ensure that the Attorney-General is able, in this sensitive and important context, to take a view on whether it is appropriate.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, to pursue the point, there is a vast difference, with respect, between getting the consent of the Attorney-General as a prerequisite and the right of the Attorney-General to intervene by way of nolle prosequi. The noble Lord is mistaken in what he draws from that.

Lord Pannick: My understanding is that consent is required. In any event, with great respect, I do not see the practical difference. Other noble Lords will assist the Committee in that respect.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, this is a delicate and sensitive matter and I will spend a few moments on it. I entirely understand why noble Lords who have spoken have raised the points that they have. There are some footnotes as well, but two major things emerge from the debate so far. First, it is interesting that, despite the fact that certain noble Lords have said, "Let's leave the system exactly as it is, there's nothing wrong with it", everybody who has spoken so far has proposed a change to the present system, either by supporting the Government or by tabling amendments as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has done-

Baroness Tonge: Can the noble and learned Lord please clarify that? The amendments are to Clause 154, which I thought was a new provision to change the existing arrangements for the application for arrest warrants.

Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I will make my second point, about what the existing system is. With respect, there is a misunderstanding among some of the Committee as to what the existing system is. In a moment, I will take the opportunity to say something about that on the basis of my experience, particularly from when I was Her Majesty's Attorney-General.
	First, in fundamental agreement with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, the principle of universal jurisdiction is extremely important. I strongly support that principle. I was a Back-Bencher on the Labour Benches led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who pushed the Government into passing an effective form of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which meant that we could prosecute people who were not permanently established here. I was the Attorney-General who consented to the prosecution of Zardad the Afghan warlord; I actually led for the prosecution in that case. As the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, said, he was convicted, by a British jury, of hostage taking and torture. He was sentenced to 20 years, which he is still serving.
	Just so that noble Lords do not think that my favouring of universal jurisdiction is limited to particular countries, I mention Israel. I publically indicated that I was going to call for the extradition of an Israeli solider when I was concerned that the Israeli authorities were not properly investigating and dealing with an allegation that a British citizen, James Miller, has been killed in Gaza by Israeli fire. I did not do that because I was being pushed by some group. I went and talked to the Israeli investigators, looked at their files, cross-examined them, and called for the Metropolitan Police to carry out its own investigations into evidence which the Israelis said demonstrated that it was not Israeli gunfire, but which demonstrated that it almost certainly was.
	In the end the Israelis did not go quite as far as I would have liked, but they did more than they had done as they were threatened with a prosecution. Indeed, they thankfully paid significant compensation to the family of this poor young man. Therefore, I am very much in favour of universal jurisdiction. It is important that we have a robust and effective system. However-this is the second point-there is an anomaly in the existing system, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has rightly identified; namely, that the prosecution cannot take place without the consent of the Attorney-General. This is the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, had.
	I know that memories fade and that it is a number of years since I did this job, but my recollection is that every single one of the universal jurisdiction offences requires the consent of the Attorney-General to a prosecution. Of course, the Attorney-General can always issue a nolle prosequi, but that is different. In these cases, Parliament has taken the view that a prosecution of this sort has such a public element to it that it should not proceed without the consent of the Attorney-General. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, the consequence of that is that we have this anomaly. A private group or a private individual, no doubt for good reasons but sometimes perhaps not-I will come back to that-can have an individual arrested even though, when the matter goes to the Attorney-General, the prosecution will not take place.
	I first came across the practical problem to which this matter gives rise in the case of Major General Almog, which has been referred to. The first that I knew of an application to arrest Major General Almog was when we received a call from the relevant court to ask me whether I wanted to say anything about it. I could not say anything about it as I had no role at that stage; my role would come later. I could not do anything. I make this point also because one of the briefings that I have seen on this issue suggests that there is no evidence that in that case there was no prior notice given to the Attorney-General of the intended application. I know that there was not in that case because it took place on my watch. From that moment I have considered how you deal with the anomaly that you can have somebody arrested but ultimately there will be no prosecution. That gives rise to a number of problems. First, it gives rise obviously to the problem that someone may be detained, deprived of their liberty and certainly restricted in their movements for a period before the papers reach the Attorney-General and a decision can be made. That is not good for the individual. Secondly, it is not good for the people who have, as it were, promoted the prosecution in the first place. They will be disappointed that, having got somebody arrested, the matter does not proceed.
	There is a question of the public funds involved-perhaps it is for your Lordships to decide how important this is-but there is also the consideration that such action will in certain circumstances exacerbate relations with what may be a friendly state if, for good reason-I will come back to what that may be-an Attorney-General says no to a prosecution but somebody has been locked up for a period of time, or at least prevented from going about their business. That will do nothing for good relations and there may be circumstances-the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to such a circumstance, hypothetically, at least-where that could be very damaging to a wider interest.
	For a long time I believed that it was necessary to deal with the anomaly. One comes back to the difference between noble Lords' amendments and the Government's amendment. Fundamentally, the difference comes down to this: other noble Lords' amendments say that you should notify the DPP and he should have an advisory role. The Government say that this process cannot happen without his consent. What is the difference between those stances? It is not the difference of timing because if you are going to notify the DPP and ask him to give an advisory view, you need to give the man or woman time to consider it. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said about the ability of the CPS to move swiftly. I have also heard it said that one of the problems is that there may not be enough time. In the cases that I have seen, the groups that have wanted a prosecution have known for some time that they would like to see that particular individual prosecuted. They may not have known that he or she was travelling on a particular day but they have been assembling their evidence. I see no reason at all-I understand that the DPP has offered this-why there cannot be a system under which they present their material to the DPP so that he and his staff have a reasonable opportunity to consider it and can form a view as to whether or not they will give their consent.
	I see real dangers in the present system. It is an anomaly. It leads to dangers to the individual and risk to the people who promote this. It risks relations. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that he knows of cases-indeed, he has advised on cases-of people who are frightened to come to this country. I have heard this as well. The Government will know better, and if that is the case, it is a bad thing. It is a bad thing if in fact they are being deterred from coming where ultimately there have been no prosecution.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Does the noble and learned Lord agree that it would be quite wrong for the DPP to give in advance immunity to someone coming to this country?

Lord Goldsmith: I am really not sure that I agree with the noble Lord. It is not an immunity, but if the question arose and the DPP had seen the material that was going to be produced, had examined it and, having regard to the evidential test and the public interest test, he was of the view that he would not consent to a prosecution, I do not see why he should not say that. That would not be done in a broadcast, but if there were a legitimate reason to know the answer, so that someone can, for example, come to attend an important meeting with Her Majesty's Government, why not? In that respect, what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said about the DPP having an opportunity to consult a policy statement about this was very wise. That is exactly what I would expect this particular DPP to do; and he would look to what all the interests were. That would, no doubt, be one of the questions that he would consider-to what extent is it right? He would want to make sure that he is not bounced into making wrong decisions and that he has an adequate opportunity to decide. That is important.
	That takes me to where I was going when the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, intervened-the amendment in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. There are two points about that. The first is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Neither this DDP nor, I hope, any DPP needs the straightjacket of being told by Parliament how to do his or her job. They can be trusted to do that without that sort of straightjacket.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords-

Lord Goldsmith: Let me just make this point and of course I will give way to the noble Lord. I made the point about that amendment not just because it is surprising that he is putting it forward on the basis that it is intended to restate the law as it stands, because it patently does not do that, but because, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it demonstrates the dangers of trying to be prescriptive as to exactly what the tests should be.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I think that the noble and learned Lord misunderstands the purpose behind our amendment, which is not to put a straightjacket around the director, but to give assurance to people who want to come to this country that they will be treated in exactly the same way as a resident or a British citizen would be treated. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would welcome that assurance for the purposes of advising his clients.

Lord Goldsmith: I have to say that the one thought that had not crossed my mind when I read this amendment was that it was intended to give reassurance to people coming from abroad. Noble Lords can form their own views in relation to that. I oppose that amendment.
	I want to consider the final amendment, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. I give way to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Tonge: The noble and learned Lord is very generous and I thank him for giving way yet again. Before he moves on to my noble friend's amendment, can he explain something to me? I am enjoying and learning a huge amount from this debate, but I am not a lawyer. Let us say that a British citizen is arrested on a Saturday night, or whenever, for some reason or other, and put into the cells for perhaps one or two nights, and that no charge is brought in the end. What is the difference between that and someone who may or may not have committed war crimes being put into a cell and held for one or two days, but no charge is brought?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for what she kindly said about this debate, but I should have thought that she and I would agree on this without hesitation. So far as is possible, no one should be detained and deprived of their liberty in circumstances where ultimately they are not going to be charged with a criminal offence, or for some other good reason. I do not like the idea of saying, "Oh well, it is all right, because after a night out in the pub, people may be locked up for a night; let us lock up the Foreign Minister", or a general from another state. If there will not be a prosecution, it makes no sense to do that.
	The other fundamental difference is the second element missing from the debate. Parliament has decided that in such an offence, universal jurisdiction is enormously important and we should do our bit to ensure that tyrants, despots and war criminals do not find a place of refuge in this country. Absolutely, but it has decided that that should be done by giving the ultimate responsibility to the Attorney-General to decide whether prosecution takes place. The anomaly is that, despite that, prosecutions can be started and people can be detained, even though that will not happen.
	I conclude by saying that I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. It is a sound amendment. If I may tell tales out of school, when I was in office, I tried to resuscitate the war crimes unit, which had existed. The problem-I address these remarks absolutely at the Minister-is resources from the police. The police have to do the investigation. The prosecutors can help, and I hope that, despite cuts, they will be able to help, but ultimately the police have to do that.
	For example, to bring the Zardad prosecution, we had to have Metropolitan Police officers in Afghanistan. We had to find the evidence and give it by video conference to a court in the Old Bailey, which was an interesting experience in itself for the jurors, who were not quite sure what they were watching. It is a much more onerous obligation to prosecute those cases. That is one of the public interest considerations which someone might well take into account, especially if there is another country, including the home country, which looks as if it is capable and willing to prosecute the case itself, which is one of the principles under the International Criminal Court treaty, the Rome treaty: the principle of complementarity.
	I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but I respectfully oppose the other amendments.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: As a non-lawyer, I shall make some non-lawyer points. I briefly echo what I said on Second Reading, which is that I very much welcome Clause 154 and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. I wanted the previous Government to bring it forward. Although they were preparing to do so, they came to the end of their tenure before it came near the legislature. I am very pleased to see it because, despite what has been said by those who have tabled some of the amendments to Clause 154, the status quo is not acceptable to non-lawyers-as well, apparently, as to lawyers. It is unacceptable for various reasons. One is that it exposes the English and Welsh legal systems to abuse by politically motivated individuals who just want to have a foreign politician arrested for political reasons. It cannot be good for the law to allow that to happen.
	There are other reasons why the status quo is unacceptable. An unintended consequence of the current legislation is that the DPP is consulted only before the issue of arrest warrants in public prosecutions, not private ones. To a non-lawyer, that makes no sense. I do not consider that any of the four amendments do anything to improve the clause; they are unnecessary.
	I shall speak briefly to Amendment 245AA. In the 15 years that I have watched Bills go through the House, I have never seen such prescriptive instructions to a DPP. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven is not in his place, because I hoped that he would explain it to me. Perhaps he can do that at Report.
	I support Clause 154 and I do not think that it needs to be amended.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House much longer. However, not having been in the Bishops' Bar earlier and not being a lawyer, I beg leave to give the view of the common man-or the common woman doctor, if you like. It comes from experience gained in the other place and here of going to places where horrendous war crimes have been committed.
	When I was in the other place, I visited Rwanda soon after the genocide. I visited Kosovo and Albania when the atrocities were going on, and I cannot describe to you the injuries suffered by some women who had managed to run down to Albania and get into the hospitals there. Southern Sudan has seen atrocities committed over decades. More recently, I was in Gaza very soon after the conflict there. People who have had that experience and who have seen what happens feel very strongly that we should do everything in our power to try to bring the perpetrators to justice. That is where I am coming from. It is not in the case of a particular country although many people may think that it is-it is not. These crimes are being committed all over the world, as my noble friend Lord Carlile has told us.
	I welcome this group of amendments which I hope will allow the Government to look again at Clause 154. They are suggestions of amendments and Clause 154 has caused huge consternation among those who care about universal jurisdiction. I also hope that the Government will give the real explanation-and a plausible one, please-for introducing the clause in the first place. I repeat that the right to initiate a private prosecution is an ancient common law right of the people of England and Wales and it provides a valuable safeguard for people like me, not lawyers, against political interference by the Executive.
	If we ever have a Bill of Rights it should surely include the right of any citizen to approach the courts with an application for the arrest of a suspect who may have committed the sort of crimes that I have seen. This right has not been abused: 10 applications in 10 years is hardly politically motivated people manipulating the law-10 in 10 years, with only two successful ones. Will the Minister explain what abuse has taken place over the last 10 years or is it, as many people outside this House feel, an attempt to regain some sort of political control over this process?
	This is why I support the amendments. Amendment 245, tabled by Lord Campbell-Savours, says,
	"apply to the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice".
	That implies a long wait before that advice is received -he can take his time and it might delay the process too much-but nevertheless we should consider it.
	Amendment 245A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, and my noble friend Lord Lester, proposes that instead of being given the right of veto over the arrest, the DPP should be allowed to give evidence of his views to the court as an additional safeguard against vexatious applications. The timing would be out of his hands and therefore there would be less delay. Amendment 245AZA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Phillips, makes this even clearer, giving the DPP the opportunity to attend the court to give his opinion.
	My noble friend Lord Carlile says that there will be no delay, and this has been emphasised by other lawyers in this House: "There is no delay. The DPP does not delay. These things are very urgent. They have to be dealt with immediately". I am a doctor and I would say that too. If anyone said to me that I might be late turning up or might delay or not make a decision on a patient in time, I would say, "No, of course not. I deal with things immediately. I always go when I am called. I am never at a dinner party when someone wants my advice. I will never, ever delay". We all say that, in whatever profession, but sometimes there are reasons why there is delay and that is what concerns me. Delay occurs not deliberately but because of business and the pressure of work.
	If the House wishes to retain a veto over applications for arrest warrants by the DPP, that will in my view be regrettable. However, if the Government insist, they must set out the circumstances in which the DPP will not use the veto, which is essential to preserve the independence of his office. I appreciate the comments that have been made about Amendment 245AA tabled by my noble friend Lord Macdonald and presented in his absence by my noble friend Lord Thomas. I think that it would achieve some of our objectives. It provides that the DPP must consent to the issuing of arrest warrants when he believes that the evidence establishes a prospect of conviction or when there are reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence will be forthcoming within a reasonable period. He will keep the case under review and take it over in order to discontinue it if the evidence is not produced. I have already dealt with the question of someone being unjustly held under an arrest warrant for a short time.
	I cannot understand anyone who professes to believe in universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity or war crimes opposing any of these amendments or seeking to improve Clause 154. I do not approve of the clause at all-I would rather the status quo was maintained. However, if we are to have Clause 154, then anyone who believes in universal jurisdiction should look again to make sure that we implement it fairly and justly, and in a way that means that we can apprehend international criminals.
	Finally, it gives me great pleasure to welcome the new clause tabled by my noble friend Lord Carlile. He and I have many disagreements but that does not mean-I say this very sincerely-that I do not hugely respect him and his opinions and judgments. As I said, we have many disagreements but on this matter we agree, and I trust that the Government will find a way of accepting his amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am very conscious of the time and therefore shall try to be telegraphic, as Lord Kingsland used to say when standing at this Dispatch Box.
	We have clearly had a very energetic and well informed debate. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, that the previous Government were extremely proud of having introduced and expanded universal jurisdiction. There was a real determination to make plain that this country would not provide a safe haven for those accused of war crimes and the other serious offences in the schedule, and I am confident that the current Government share that aspiration. The whole purpose of having universal jurisdiction is so that we can address those issues. It is important that these grievous offences are prosecuted with vigour. I say straight away that I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about whether we currently have sufficient resources to ensure the vigorous and effective prosecution that we all seek. We hope that the Government will be able to make those resources available. We think that Amendment 246 should be strongly supported and we hope that the Government will give it favourable consideration.
	Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I agree with the analysis given by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Pannick, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith in relation to this amendment. Specifically, I endorse and agree with the approach adopted by the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, who made it plain when he gave evidence before the committee that because of the seriousness of the cases to which universal jurisdiction applies, if the evidential test was met, it would speak very powerfully in favour of a prosecution. I would respectfully agree with that view.
	I also agree with the view expressed by a number of noble Lords that we can rely on the Director of Public Prosecutions to exercise his discretion appropriately and wholly independently and that when both he and/or the Attorney-General of the day act in relation to specific cases, they act without political bias and as law officers. The one successful prosecution we have had-which was led, as my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith has made plain, by him personally-was the most successful way of prosecuting these cases. I hope that the Committee, when reading Keir Starmer's evidence to the committee, will be comforted by his clear commitment to working with groups that might be concerned about those who have committed these grievous offences in order to prepare cases in advance of anyone coming to this country and so that they can respond vigorously. In his evidence he said that he had set up a committee, that he intended to publish guidelines and that they met regularly. That is a matter of great concern and interest.
	When he gave his evidence, the DPP also raised the issue of the gap. I should like to endorse quickly what my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith said about the process that we currently have. Noble Lords will know that the prima facie case that has to be produced is not one where the court currently interrogates the evidence. The difference between what the DPP will do and what the court can now do is that the DPP is able to interrogate that evidence and the gap. Therefore, the time between when the warrant is issued and when the consent has to be obtained is likely to be very short. That gap causes some real difficulties, as my noble and learned friend has indicated. The Government have got that right. I invite noble Lords who disagree to consider carefully what has been said in this debate and also the evidence given by the current DPP, which bears reading in a very favourable way.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, made no reference to the advice given by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the noble and learned Baroness has made no such reference. Does that mean that she sets its advice at nought?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, my Lords, certainly not. I was seeking to relieve the Committee of the burden of listening to me for more than was absolutely necessary, bearing in mind that we are now at 9.19 pm and the Government have yet to respond. Of course, it is for the Government to deal with these matters. I simply wanted to make plain that we on this side would support the analysis made by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Pannick, and my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith. I thought that that would be the fastest way. I am sure that we can return to this on Report. If the Committee would love to hear from me on that basis, I am sure that I could entertain your Lordships for some considerable time. But, at this time of night, something told me that the Committee would not thank me. For that reason, I have curtailed my remarks. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, need have no such restraint.

Lord McNally: My Lords, sometimes the House throws up, well outside the usual hours of attention, debates of immense importance. There is no doubt that this debate will be read and studied outside the confines of the House to great advantage, because it was extremely thorough, with arguments deployed on both sides with great passion but also, in the tradition of the House, with great courtesy. As one of the non-lawyers participating, I very much benefited from listening to the learned side of the House dealing with matters of law.
	Of course, as with all these things, it is a matter of judgment. We get advice from many quarters. It is not a matter of setting the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights at nil; our judgment is carefully considered. However, as the two former Attorneys-General pointed out, somebody then has to make a judgment. The judgment that we have made is that the purpose of Clause 154 is to ensure that in respect of offences over which the United Kingdom has asserted universal jurisdiction, an arrest warrant is issued on the application of a private prosecution only where there is a real prospect of a viable prosecution. This outcome is achieved by requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before the warrant can be issued. The Government have decided that this is the best way forward.
	The detail of this debate indicates that more than one opinion can be honestly held, but nothing that I have heard today has dissuaded me from thinking that this is the right way forward. However, we will return to this on Report. I hope that some issues were clarified in the debate. Certainly I will look at the resource issue that was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, but I am a little worried about the answer that I will be given-[Interruption.] It is always worrying when there are interventions. It is bad enough when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, intervenes, but when the thunderous intervention seems to come from an even higher authority, one gets really worried.
	I pay tribute to the previous Government on their record on universal jurisdiction. The two officeholders responsible can take rightful pride in it. I also put on record the confidence of this Government in the independence and abilities of the present DPP. The way that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, introduced the debate set a tone that encouraged the exchange of honest and informed opinions. Although I will ask noble Lords, given the nature of the Committee stage, not to press their amendments, it is clear that the debate will influence further discussions on how we go forward.
	I will deal with some of the issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, finished her remarks by expressing her concern that there would be unnecessary delay. That concern was also expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza. It was answered very clearly by the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle and Lord Pannick. In some ways, I shall try to shorten my remarks because I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is after my job, but his speech answered many of the questions raised, including on delay. The DPP has made it clear that anyone who wants to pursue a crime of universal jurisdiction should engage very early with him. Giving evidence, he said:
	"They should come to us with whatever evidence they have, and we will undertake to look at it and to advise".-[Official Report, Commons, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill Committee, 20/1/11; col. 124]
	We have already heard evidence about the amount of resources and the 24/7 nature of that coverage.
	It is not a matter of trusting the judges to do their job. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, put the problem far better. The actual case put to the judge is not the one that causes the problem in that, as the noble and learned Lord rightly pointed out, it may involve somebody being detained on very spurious grounds. We are all experienced politicians and we have seen examples. The gain for those wanting to raise these issues is not in the trial or the verdict but in the publicity gained by getting the individual into the situation in the first place. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, suggested, it is not in any way that we wish to take away the right of the private citizen to pursue matters of universal jurisdiction, but simply that we believe that the present situation is unsatisfactory and extremely difficult in terms of law. I know that there have been very few cases but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, pointed out and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, confirmed, the previous Government were looking at this issue and feared, as do we, that there is a risk that the present weakness of our system could be exploited at a time when we would want to use all our influence.
	One accepts the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, that there may be a chill factor in asking for that hurdle to be cleared. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, argued, there may be a deterrence factor. We have had to weigh those things, and we have come down in favour of trying to remove that deterrence factor while not removing the line to universal jurisdiction. We are asking a non-political officer to look at the issue and asking those wishing to take it forward to clear what is in many ways a very modest hurdle if the situation is as clear as they would claim. There is no point in allowing the court to issue a warrant in a case where the director has concluded that there is no realistic prospect of a viable prosecution. That is why we believe that the first three amendments cast the Director of Public Prosecutions in an advisory role to the court, which is not welcome.
	Amendment 245 requires the court to apply to the DPP for advice on the advisability of granting a warrant or summons. It goes on to make it clear that such a warrant or summons cannot be issued without taking into account the DPP's advice. As was acknowledged by those who tabled the other amendments, the thrust of them is to move from giving responsibility to the DPP to putting him in an advisory role. The DPP was clear in his evidence to the Public Bill Committee about the degree of detail in which applications for consent are examined and the specialist resources that are available for him doing so. If the DPP concludes that the tests under the code for the Crown prosecutors are not met, it is difficult to see what purpose will be served by the court nevertheless issuing a warrant or why it would wish to do so.
	Amendment 245AA is obviously intended to place in the Bill the test used by the DPP in considering whether to grant this consent. I will not go into great detail at this point because I would be afraid of rekindling the fire between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. But I ask readers of Hansard to turn to those exchanges to judge again whether we have got the balance right. I think that we have. I am not persuaded that it is necessary to embody the guidance in the clause. The tests are of general application but they are not set out in statute and it would be strange to do so in this context.
	The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Carlile is designed to monitor the arrangements for investigating and prosecuting certain grave international offences and for assisting the International Criminal Court. I understand the interest in reviewing the effectiveness of these arrangements but I am not sure that what is proposed would be helpful. Prosecutions for one of these exceptionally grave offences are rare and when one takes place it is newsworthy enough for a reporting requirement to be superfluous. Investigations that do not end in prosecution are a different matter and reporting on them would not be straightforward.
	As the exclusions built in the amendment recognise, it would not be right to disclose personal details, but without such details the information is unlikely to be meaningful. The information that the report provided would therefore be so incomplete as to make it effectively useless. What would be of value would be for the Director of Public Prosecutions to monitor any case for which his consent is sought under Clause 154, which applies to offences that to some extent overlap with those listed in this amendment and to publish the number of cases and the outcome. I understand that the director would be content to carry this out.
	The amendment includes a requirement to report on the assistance of the International Criminal Court. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office produces an annual human rights command paper, which includes details of the UK policy on criminal justice and the rule of law. It is subject to the scrutiny of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The command paper makes clear the UK's commitment to the principle that there should be no impunity for the most serious international crimes and should provide details of the practical support which we have provided to all six existing international criminal tribunals. The paper does not currently provide the level of detail which the amendment would require but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will give careful consideration to extending it to include more specific details of assistance provided as envisaged by this amendment.
	I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, when they have time to look at those two responses, to see whether they are satisfactory. I will be happy to meet with them on these points, but I hope that they go a long way to meet what they say. If not, of course, we can return to this on Report or clarify it further in discussions. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, but with real and personal thanks both for the spirit and the level of engagement in this debate which I hope will help to reassure people about where we are coming from. I think that both in this House and in this Parliament there is cross-party commitment to pursuing those who perpetrate horrific crimes that are committed all over the world and were so graphically described by my noble friend Lady Tonge. As a country, we have been for many years a leader in this, and we will continue to be.
	I can make a personal commitment. At the Ministry of Justice and within this Government, I am the Minister responsible for civil liberties and human rights. I would not stand at the Dispatch Box advocating this clause if I did not believe that it was absolutely foursquare with our continuing full commitment to the universal jurisdiction. It is not a step towards political control. It gives us a law that is fit for purpose, a very noble purpose, if we all continue to pursue it.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate. It is nearly 10 o'clock and I have not eaten yet, as indeed will be the case for most noble Lords. We have a lot to reflect on before the Report stage, as indeed will many organisations outside this House which have been in contact with Members. Before I withdraw the amendment, I should say that I remain slightly confused about the public interest. That is where the suspicion may well lie, and as I understand it, explanations as to what constitutes the public interest in particular cases are not published. With that in mind, the responses of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to my interventions may well be of interest to a number of organisations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 245 withdrawn.
	Amendments 245A to 246 not moved.
	Clause 155 : Orders and regulations
	Amendments 247 to 249 not moved.
	Clause 155 agreed.
	Clauses 156 and 157 agreed.
	Clause 158 : Commencement
	Amendment 250
	 Moved by Lord Rosser
	250: Clause 158, page 104, line 29, after "subsections" insert "(2A),"

Lord Rosser: My Lords, in moving Amendment 250, I shall speak also to Amendment 252. This Bill represents a major change for policing in England and Wales, and the Minister has told us on more than one occasion that the Government are listening.
	Concerns have been widely expressed about the impact of the politicisation of the police; the impact of the lack of effective checks and balances on commissioners and the considerable unchallenged powers that they will have; the impact of the relationship between the PCCs and chief constables on the latter's operational responsibilities; and the impact of the strategic policing requirements and the proposed national crime agency on the new arrangements. There is uncertainty, too, about the impact of the new policing structure on relationships and working arrangements with other bodies, including local authorities. There has been no assessment of the impact of the proposed new arrangements on levels of crime, which have been going down steadily for a number of years. The Government agree that their proposals represent a major change to policy in England and Wales. We should not make such a change without a full inquiry and a report on the impact of the changes by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, with the report being laid before both Houses of Parliament before a commencement order is made by the Secretary of State under Clause 158(1) in respect of Part 1 of this Bill.
	The Government have sought to put Bills through Parliament that have then been delayed because they have been compelled to reassess their stance when the impact of their proposals has become clearer. It has resulted in delays, for example, to the health Bill, the Armed Forces Bill and the Public Bodies Bill, which is why we have to start a week earlier after the summer Recess than the Government previously announced.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I should not wish the noble Lord to mislead the House; I know he has no intention of doing so. As he knows, earlier today I explained that the earlier start was as a result of the Labour Party's excessive use of 17 days in Committee on one Bill, and the absolute refusal of the opposition Front Bench to divide Bills as normal between Grand Committee and the Chamber. The noble Lord would not wish to mislead the House, and that is the reason-fairly and squarely at the feet of the Opposition-for our coming back a week earlier. There is no doubt about the matter.

Lord Rosser: I am sure the noble Baroness would not wish to think that because she and the Government have a view on the cause of the situation, that view is automatically right and everybody else accepts it.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, perhaps in that the case the noble Lord-or the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition, who is now present-will confirm that the Opposition are now willing to make a proper disposition of Bills into Grand Committee, and assist the Government by having a normal disposition. We now have the lowest level of Bills in Grand Committee of the past 10 years.

Lord Rosser: I am sure that if the issue had been caused by what happened over the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, it would not have taken as long as it has for the Government to decide that they needed to come back earlier after the Summer Recess. It is clear that it has happened because of the kind of issues that have been raised over the health Bill, the Armed Forces Bill and the Public Bodies Bill. The Government have been compelled to reassess their stance as the impact of their proposals has become clear.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I really cannot allow the Opposition to mislead the House. The decision was made only after the Opposition refused to come to agreements over the scheduling of business. That is why we have delayed. We could have made this decision a lot earlier had we had a definitive answer from the Opposition. We are clearly now in a difficult position where the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is trying to gainsay reality. I know Hansard will record his words. I know wherein the facts lie; they are not in his words.

Lord Rosser: I appreciate that the noble Baroness is fairly sensitive on this matter because the reasons that she put forward this afternoon are being challenged. I simply repeat: surely the noble Baroness does not believe that when she expresses a view on why the Government have got themselves into a mess, it means that everybody else will accept it. We do not.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, in that case I look forward to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, who is in the Chamber now-

Noble Lords: The Leader of the Opposition!

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Leader of the Opposition-she has been a distinguished Leader of the House in the past; I hope that she will not be again for a long time, but she fulfilled the task very ably. I hope that she is now able to confirm that the Opposition will no longer refuse the proper disposition of Bills between the Chamber and Grand Committee, because that would assist the House to move on to normal working practices. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has a view that is held, I am sure firmly by him, for political reasons. I look only at the reality of business.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the government Chief Whip. I know-it is not that I think-that my colleague the opposition Chief Whip has been very willing to consider, quite properly and appropriately, Bills going into Grand Committee. That is what we wish to do. We wish to co-operate fully with the Government. It has to be said, however, that many of the Bills before us are extremely complex. It is not just that they are political. Therefore, my noble friends on these Benches-not only those who are here today but those who are not in their places-believe that the scope of the Bills is such that they deserve to be debated in the Chamber.
	One of the problems, not only on my Benches but throughout the House as a whole, is that people do not understand yet that the Grand Committee is not a second-rate Chamber. It is a Chamber where we can deliberate and assess Bills and scrutinise them just as we can in this Chamber. All around the House we have to be more aware of the ability of this House to better use the Grand Committee.
	Having said that, I want to put on record that earlier in the day it was said that we had agreed to put one Bill into Grand Committee and then subsequently decided that it would be more appropriate for it to be taken on the Floor of the House. I record that that Bill was the Scotland Bill. After the elections to the Scottish Parliament, things fundamentally changed, not just politically but in terms of the subject matter of the Bill. That is why we decided it was more appropriate for the Bill, which is now a major constitutional Bill in our view, to be taken on the Floor of the House.
	That having been said, I know that next week my noble friend the Chief Whip will wish to enter into further conversation with the government Chief Whip to see how we can secure other Bills in a Grand Committee of this House.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I put on record my gratitude to the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition for her intervention. She and I agree on so many matters when it comes to the business of the House. I entirely accord with her views expressed clearly about the value of Grand Committee. I am sure that she is right that it is misunderstood generally around the House, not just by newer Members of this place who work well here but those who have a more established presence. It is a valuable place.
	I recall that I agreed very reluctantly for the Extradition Act to be considered in Grand Committee because it was a highly controversial Bill at the time. But it proved that it was worth while. I certainly welcome, late as it is at night-we have had a long day- the measured way in which the Leader of the Opposition has responded and the fact that she has put forward a proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the opposition Chief Whip, should enter into further discussions next week about the disposition of Bills into Grand Committee. That is most welcome.

Lord Rosser: I shall conclude the comments that I was making. In putting forward these two amendments, I have made points about a number of areas of concern in relation to this Bill that have been expressed in our discussions, particularly in relation to Part 1. We should not be taking risks over changes to policing arrangements. We should be as clear as we can before we start on the impact of what is proposed, and the Government should agree to the independent inquiry and the report on the impact of their proposals that is provided for in these amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Doocey: In view of the lateness of the hour, I will be brief. The purpose of Amendment 251 is to move the implementation of the changes to policing in London from October this year to October next year. The Mayor of London and the Government are keen to introduce the new system from 1 October this year and the Bill would allow that to happen. There are two important reasons why that should be delayed.
	First, the Olympic and Paralympic Games will take place between July and September next year. There will also be many preparatory events which require large policing operations. For example, the torch relay will start in May and continue until July. That will be a major security challenge. Police officers will be drafted in from all parts of the country to police the games. The Olympics will affect every police force in Britain, not just the Metropolitan Police. There is absolute agreement that the Olympics present the biggest security challenge that British police have ever faced in peacetime. They will require a policing operation on an unprecedented scale. The Metropolitan Police have spent years planning for every eventuality. As circumstances develop, these plans will need to be updated and revised to take account of issues as they arise. For any Government to allow the police to divert their efforts from this huge security operation in order to take part in a reorganisation is deeply worrying.
	Secondly, the mayoral election in London next May could result in a change of mayor. It is entirely possible that a new policing system could be put in place on 1 October this year, designed to reflect the current mayor's priorities, only to be dismantled again next year if another party wins the election. It is a real possibility that the police in London could face not one but two major reorganisations in the period leading up to the Olympic Games. Reorganisations are disruptive in any organisation. This one will require the police to change all their reporting structures and to brief a completely new set of stakeholders and board members. This is no easy task, as anyone who has ever been involved with policing will say. It will take huge effort and time on both sides. The reorganisation will be work-intensive, expensive and time-consuming. It should happen only once and at a time when it does not conflict with the planning of the Olympic Games. The police must not get involved in a major reorganisation at this time. They must be free to concentrate their efforts and energies on the greatest security threat this country has ever faced.

Baroness Hamwee: I support my noble friend in her amendment. She has been absolutely consistent and spoken powerfully on a number of occasions, both in public and in private, about this issue. She has certainly convinced me. I have not told her, but I thought at the start of the conversation some months ago that she was perhaps overegging the case. I do not believe that now. In view of the time, I do not want to detain noble Lords any longer but wanted to put that on record. Similarly, though I do not want to enter into much of the discussion that surrounded Amendment 252, I said during the debate on pilots that I thought it a good idea for HMIC to report on the operation of pilots. That was many hours of debate ago but it is only consistent of me to support a different arrangement but one also involving HMIC and a report to Parliament, as contained in Amendment 252.

Baroness Browning: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Doocey has put forward the assertion that it is not in the interests of the Metropolitan Police Service for the model to be implemented in London before the Olympics due to the potential impact on the operational delivery of policing within London. I have to say to my noble friend-and I know she has heard this also from my right honourable friend the Policing Minister in person on a number of occasions-that not just the Mayor of London but the Commissioner of the Metropolis is also keen for the transition from MPA governance to that of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime as soon as possible after Royal Assent is achieved for this Bill.
	I appreciate that my noble friend's concerns that moving to the new system of governance ahead of the Olympics will require the membership of the newly established police and crime panel in London to be brought up to speed on the intricacies of the Olympic operation in London, which the Metropolitan Police will co-ordinate with the support of other forces in England and Wales. However, I would stress that the key decision-makers around this operation within London, the Mayor for London and the Commissioner of the Metropolis, will remain the same if the transfer from one system of governance to the other takes place before May 2012. Of course, we cannot predict the outcome of the mayoral election in May 2012. It may be the case that in May next year the commissioner will be briefing a new mayoral team on the policing arrangements for the Olympics. But that is a possibility that arises whenever we commence the provisions in the Bill. The point is that commencing the provisions before May 2012 would not create any additional disruption.
	I am sorry that I cannot say more to my noble friend. I know that she has had several conversations with my right honourable friend in another place about this since she originally raised these concerns. I am obviously very happy to talk to her about it again, but we have double-checked that there is no real concern with the mayor or the commissioner. That is the response sought specifically in relation to the concerns that my noble friend raised previously.
	We have already debated at some length the merits of pilots, and it is the Government's view that pilots should not take place, as this would create two models of governance within England and Wales for a police service that on a daily basis interacts and collaborates across force boundaries. We have also made it clear that the Government do not believe it necessary for HMIC to conduct a feasibility study into the coalition Government's manifesto commitment. HMIC has already provided sound evidence of the need for reform and greater accountability and transparency to be introduced within the policing landscape within England and Wales.
	I am grateful to the many noble Lords who have made their views known during the Committee stage of this Bill. I am also grateful for the meetings that I have had with Members across the House on Part 1 of the Bill. I hope to meet as many concerns as possible when we return at Report, but I am unable to accept the amendments before the House tonight, and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Rosser: I thank the Minister for that response, which I have to say was not entirely a surprise. The Minister has said on more than one occasion that the Government are listening. We will await and see what impact that has at Report before considering whether or not to pursue this matter at that stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 250 withdrawn.
	Amendments 251 to 254 not moved.
	Clause 158 agreed.
	Clause 159 agreed.
	House resumed.
	Bill reported with amendments.

House adjourned at 10 pm.